02 A.T. Jones - The National Sunday Law

THE
NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW,

ARGUMENT OF
ALONZO T. JONES
BEFORE THE
United States Senate Committee on Education and Labor;
AT
WASHINGTON, D. C., DEC. 13, 088.
AMERICAN SENTINEL,
76 AND 28 COLLEGE PLACE, CHICAGO, ILL.; 1059 CASTRO ST.,
OAKLAND, CAL.; 43 BOND ST., NEW YORK,
1892,
Coeivk\Akiu 1889, BV la101A7.0 1. JONES•
4r
INTRODUCTION.
THIS pamphlet is a report of an argument made upon the

national Sunday bill introduced by Senator Blair in the Fiftieth
Congress. It is not, however, exactly the argument that was
made before the Senate Committee, as there were so many in-
terruptions in the course of my speech that it was impossible
to make a connected argument upon a single point. By these
questions, etc., my argument was not only forced to take a wider
range than was intended when I began to speak, but I was pre-
vented from making the definite argument that I designed to
present. I do not speak of these interruptions and counter-
arguments by way of complaint, but only to explain why this
pamphlet is issued. Nevertheless it is a fact that while there
were eighteen speeches before mine, occupying three hours, in
all of which together there were only one huildred and eighty•
nine questions and counter-arguments by 'all the members of the
Committee who were present, I was interrupted by the Chairman
alone, one hundred and sixty-nine times in ninety minutes, as may
be seen by the official report of the hearing.— Fiftieth Congress,
Second Session, Messages and Documents No. 43,0. 73-102.
National Sunday legislation, is matter of national interest.
While it is true that this particular Sunday-rest bill did not be.
come a law—the legislation• having died with the expiration of
the Fiftieth Congress—it is also true that those who demanded,
formulated, and promoted this legislation never slackened their
efforts, and they hive now, 1892, attained the grand object of
their ambition—they have the national Government fully com-
mitted to the whole course of religious legislation exposed in this
argument.
In the Fifty-second Congress, first session, the Sunday-law
advocates concentrated all their forces and all their energies
upon the point of securing the closing of the World's Fair on
(iii)
iv 'INTRODUCTION.
Sunday, by Act of Congress. They sent to Congress, " peti-

tions" backed up by threats so overbearing that their threats
were denounced on the floors of Congress as an abuse of the
right of petition. The following is but a fair sample of these
petitions " : —
"Resolved, That we do hereby pledge ourselves and each
other, that we will from this time henceforth refuse to vote for
or support for any office or position of trust, any member of
Congress, either Senator or Representative, who shall vote for any
further aid of any kind for, the World's Fair, except on conditions
named in these resolutions."
Nevertheless, arrogant and abusive of the right of petition as
they were, they had their intended effect—Congress surrendered,
and in spite of the ConStitution, and in disregard of solemn oaths
to maintain the Constitution, this legislation was enacted, as
religious legislation, at the demand of the churches and because
they demanded it. That the legislation was religious, and
consciously and intentionally so, 'is clearly shown by all the
proceedings.- Senator Hawley, who was the chief advocate of
the measure, said of it these words: —
" Everybody knows what the foundation is. It is founded in
religious belief."
And in advocating it he regretted that he was not "the most

eloquent clergyman," that he might do the subject justice, Upon
this he said :—
" I wish, Mr. President; that I were the most eloquent clergy-
man, the most eloquent of those staunch old sturdy divines who
have honored American citizenship as well as American Chris,
tianity, that I might give something more than this feeble ex-
pression of my belief in the serious importance of thiS vote.
But I can quote a feW words—only a few- out of the many." -
Then to make up what he himself lacked in this line,- he
quoted from letters from ArchbishOp Ireland; ArchbiShOp Gross,
and Archbishop Riordan, of the Catholic Church and. froii•ihe
bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church ; and then in another
speech the next day, further supported this by citing all the
bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, both North and
South.
INTRODUCTION. V
Senator Peffer said flatly :—
"To-day we are engaged in a theological discussion concern-

ing the observance of the first day of the week."
So entirely was the discussion theological, that the chaplain
of the Senate, in reporting it to the New York Independent, July
z8, 1892, said :—
"During this debate you might have imagined yourself in a
general council or assembly or synod or conference, 'so pro-
noiaced was one senator after another."
That it was done distinctly and positively at the demand and
under the threats of the churches, is equally clear. Senator
Hiscock, who was second only to Senator Hawley in his advocacy
of the measure, said :—
" If I had charge of this amendment in the interest of the
Columbian Exposition, I would write the firovision for the closure
in any form that the religious sentiment of the country demands,
and not stand here hesitating and quibbling about it. Rather
than let the public sentiment against the Exposition being opened
on Sunday, be re-enforced by the opposition in the other House
against any legislation of this kind in the interest of the Exposi-
tion, I say to the junior senator from Illinois [Mr. Palmer], he had
better yield to this sentiment, and not let it go out to the country that
there is the slightest doubt that if this money is 'appropriated, the
Exposition will be closed on Sunday. . . . If I were interested
in this measure as I might be interested if it were located in my
own State, I should make the closure provision satisfactory to
those petitioners who have memorialized us, against the desecra-
tion of the Lord's day."
By taking the 13,000,00o people who, according to the census
of 189o, are church members in the .United States, and then
adding to these, " attendants, associates, and sympathizers "
" who have a profound respect for " the church, " whether they
believe in it or not," Senator Hawley succeeded in creating from
forty-five to fifty millions of the people of this country who have
more or less of religious profession or sympathy." Then upon
this he made the following argument : —
" There is no use in endeavoring to escape responsibility. If
the Senate to-day decides that it will not close that Exhibition on
- Sunday, the Exhibition will he opened On that clay, and you-,will
have offended more than 40,000,000 of people —seriously and
solemnly offended them. No wise statesman or monarch of
modern times, no satrap of Rome, would have thought it wise to
fly in the face of a profound conviction of the people he governed,
no matter if he thought it a profound error. It is not wise
statesmanship to do it.
" Now if gentlemen repudiate this, if they desire to reject it,
if they deny that this is in the true sense of the word a religious
nation, I should like to see the disclaimer put in white and black
and proposed by the Congress of the United States. Write it.
How would you write it ? . . . Word it, if you dare ; advocate
it, if you dare. How many who voted for it would ever code
back here again ? None I hope. . . You endanger yourselves
by opposing it."
Upon these and other evidences which he had obtained,
" Rev." H. H. George, a National Reformer from away back,
and who had spent the whole session at Washington as an
avowed "Christian lobbyist," declared in a speech in Patter-
son, N. J., Aug. 7, 1892:—
" I have learned that . . . we hold the United States Senate
in our hands."
And in reply to the proposition that the Sunday Closing Act
might be repealed at the next session, he declared : —
It cannot be repealed. We mean to maintain it at the point
of the bayonet."
And another one of the same kind of preachers, in a sermon
in Pittsburg, July 17, i8gz, said : —
"That the church has weight with great political or govern-
ing bodies, has been demonstrated most effectually in the late
World's Fair matter, when the United States Senate, the highest
body in the country, listened to the voice of religion and passed
the World's Fair $5,000,000 appropriation bill with the church-
instituted proviso that the gates of the great Exposition should
be opened upon Sunday. That grand good fact suggests to the
Christian's mind that if this may be done, so may other equally
needful measures. The church is gaining power continually,
and its voice will be heard in the future much oftener than in the
past."
These facts and evidences plainly show that in this legislation
the government of the United States has been handed over bodily
INTRODUCTION. vi i
to the churches ;. that the churches know it, and that henceforth
the government is to be used by the combined churches as a tool
by which they will execute upon all, their arbitrary
- These evidences also 'demonstrate that a number of points
made in my argument before the Senate Committee in 1888 have
now been met to the full, and that therefore those statements
were not made at random and without knowledge. This is not
only true of these statements, but it is equally true of the other
statements which remain — these too will yet be met to the full
in the progress of this great evil of religious legislation now so
positively and so fully entered upon.
For, in addition to this legislation, and in advance of it, the
Supreme Court of the United States rendered a decision Feb.
29, 1892, 'in which the Court unanimously declared this to be
" a religious people " and a Christian Nation," and so accom-
plished all that was intended to be accomplished in the religious
Amendment to the Constitution proposed by Senator Blair and
cited on pages 96 and 97 of this discussion.
The scope that was given to the subject by questions asked
of me by the Senate Committee, has opened the way for a some-
•what exhaustive treatment of the subject. These' questions
being raised by United States senators,—men of national
affairs,— show that a wider circulation of this matter is not
out of place. The subject is worthy of the careful attention
of the whole American people.
In enlarging as I have upon the matter presented in the
original hearing, the- meaning or intention of any statement has
not been changed in the slightest degree. The argument is
submitted to the American people with the earnest hope that
they will give thoughtful consideration to the principles involved.
The positions taken will bear the severest test of every form of
just criticism. A. T. J.
CONTENTS.
SYNOPSIS. -Introduction, 3-7 ; Beginning of Mr. Jones's Argument before
the Senate Committee, 9, 10 ; The Words of Christ, II, 12 ; Civil
Government a Social Compact, 13-16 ; What to God ? -What to
Cxsar ? 17-20 ; The Sabbath Not Due to Cassar, 21, 22 ; Civil
Sabbath Laws Antichristian, 23, 24 ; The Civil Power Enforces Civility,
25, 26 ; Sunday-Law Inconsistency, 27, 28 ; Laws against Blasphemy,
29-40 ; 'Christianity and Roman Law, 41, 42 ; The United States Con-
stitution, 43, 44 ; Sunday Laws Religious Legislation, 45, 46 ; Sunday
Laws Unconstitutional, 47, 48 ; Sunday-Law Petitions, 49, 50 ; Sunday
Laws Not Good, 51, 52 ; Religion Necessary to a Rest Day, 53, 54 ; A
Rest Day Belongs Only to God, 55, 56 ; The History of It; 57, 58 ; A
New Theocracy, 59, 6o ; The Government of Israel, 61, 62 ; The New
Theocracy, 63-66 ; The Fourth-Century Theocracy, 67, 68 ; Fourth-
Century Sunday Laws, 69, 70; The Union of Church and State, 71,
72 ; The Foundation of the Inquisition, 73, 74 ; No Scripture Authority
for Sunday, 75, 76 ; Sabbath Laws Belong Only with a Theocracy, 77,
78 ; More ! More ! More ! More ! 79, So ; Enforced Church-going on
Sunday, Si, 82 ; The Object of Sunday Laws, 83, 84 ; Shall the Church
Compel the Civil Power ? 85, 86 ; The Cardinal Knows What He is
Doing, 87, 88 ; The Argument Is Logical, 89, 90 ; Sunday Laws Mean
Church and State, 91, 92 ; Only God Can Enforce the Decalogue, 93,
94; No Earthly Theocracy -No Sunday Laws, 95, 96; A National
Religion Proposed, 97, 98 ; Worse than Russia, 99, too ; The State
Not a Religious Partisan, IOI, 102 ; Shall this Majority Rule ? 103,
104 ; Sunday Laws and the Working-Men, io5-108 ; Wages for Doing
Nothing, 109-112 ; Church Members Compel Work on Sunday, 113,
114 ; The Preachers Desecrate the Day, 115, 116 ; Will They Compel
Themselves ? 117, 118 ; An Exemption Clause, 119, 120 ; Exemption Is
Toleration in Disguise, 121, 122 ; The W0rkings of a Sunday Law, 123-
128 ; Subversion of Liberty, 129, 130 ; The Workings of a Sunday Law,
131-134 ; Legislative Power not Omnipotent, 135, 136 ; An Unconsti-
tutional Decision, 137, 138 ; The Pharisees Justified Themselves, 139,
140 ; Sunday Laws Invade Inalienable Rights, 144-146 ; Earthly Gov-
ernments Civil, Not Moral, 147-152 ; Is the Objection IMaginary ? 153,
154 ; No Ticket of Leave for Us, 155, 156 ; W. G. T. U. Legislation,
157, 158 ; Exemption for the Territories, 159, 160 ; The New Doctrine
of Protection, 161, 162 ; Two Sundays Instead of One, 163, 164 ; The
Answer to Unanswerable Arguments, 165, 166 ; The Authority for
Sunday Laws, 167-172 ; No Authority for Sunday Laws, 173-183 ;
Appendix A, 184-191 ; Appendix B, 192.
[ viii j
THE NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW.
ARGUMENT OF ALONZO T. JONES BEFORE THE SENATE

COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D. C.
Senator Blair. — There are gentlemen present who

wish to be heard in opposition to the bill. Prof. Alonzo
T. Jones, of Battle Creek College, Mich., is one of those
who have spoken to me in regard to it. Will you not
state, Prof. Jones, what your desire is ? I have no doubt
that we can obtain leave of the Senate to sit during its
session to-day. It is exceedingly desirable to go on
with this hearing, and complete it now. How would
such an arrangement comport with your convenience ?
First, state, please, whom you represent, and your rea-
sons for desiring to be heard.
Mr. yones.— Mr. Chairman, I represent the peo-
ple known as Seventh-day Adventists. It is true, we
have been entirely ignored by the other side. The
very small" sect,'-' as they stated it, of Seventh-day
Baptists has been recognized, but we are more than
three times their number, and many times their power
in the real force of our work. We have organizations
in every State and Territory in the Union. We have
the largest printing-house in Michigan ; the largest
printing-house on the Pacific Coast ; the largest Sani-
tarium in the world ; a college in California and one in
Michigan ; an academy in Massachusetts ; a printing
establishment in Basel, Switzerland ; one in Christiana,
(;)
10 THE NATIONAL SUNDAY LA*.
Norway and one in Melbourne, Australia. Our mis-

sion work haS enlarged until, besides embracing the
greater part of Europe, it has also extended nearly
around the world ; and we desire a hearing, with the
consent of the Committee.
Senator Blair. — Where do you reside ?
Mr. yones. — At present in Michigan. My home
for the past four years has been in California. I am
now teaching history in Battle Creek College, Mich.
I must say in justice to myself, and also in behalf
of the body which I represent, that we dissent almost
wholly, I might say, wholly, from the position taken
by the representative of the Seventh-day Baptists. I
knew, the instant that Dr. Lewis stated what he did
here, that he had "given his case away." We have not
given our case away, Senators, nor do we expect to
give it away. We expect to go deeper than any have
gone at this hearing, both upon the principles and upon
the facts, as well as upon the logic of the facts.
Senator Blair. — This matter is all familiar to you.
You are a professor of history. Can you not go on this
afternoon ?
Mr. zones. — Yes, if I can have a little space be-
tween now and this afternoon to get my papers to-
gether. I have some references to read that I did not
bring with me this morning.
Senator Blair. — Very well.
ARGUMENT.
Senator Blair. — You have a full hour, Professor.

It is now half past one.
Hr. Zones.--There are three particular lines in
which I wish to conduct the argument : First, the
THE WORDS OF CHRIST. 11
principles upon which we stand ; second, the historical

view ; and, third, the practical aspect of the question.
The principle upon which we stand is that civil gov-
ernment is civil, and has nothing to do in the mat=
ter of legislation, with religious observances in any
way. The basis of this is found in the words of Jesus
Christ in Matt. 22 : 21. When the Pharisees asked
whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not,
he replied :- "Render therefore unto C2esar the things
which are Caesar's ; and unto God the things that are
God's."
In this the Saviour certainly separated that which
pertains to Caesar from that which pertains to God.
We are not to render to Cesar that which pertains
to God ; we are not to render to God by Caesar that
which is God's.
Senator Blair.— May not the thing due to Caesar be
due to God also ?
Mr. yones.— No, sir. If that be so, then the Sav-
iour did entangle himself in his talk, the very thing
which they wanted him to do. The record says that
they sought "how they might entangle him in his
talk." Having drawn the distinction which he has, be-
tween that which belongs to Caesar and that which
belongs to God, if it be true that the same things
belong to both, then he did entangle himself in his
talk ; and where is the force in his words which com-
mand us to render to Cesar that which belongs to
Caesar, and to God the things that are God's ?
Senator Blair. — Is it not a requirement of God's
that we render to Csar that which is due to Cesar ?
Mr. yones. —Yes. •
Senator Blair. — If Caesar is society, and the Sabbath
is required for the good of society, does not God require
12 THE NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW.
us to establish the Sabbath for the good of society ?

and if society makes a law accordingly, is it not
binding ?
Mr. Jones. — It is for the good of society that men
shall be Christians ; but it is not in the province of
the State to make Christians. For the State to un-
dertake to do so would not be for the benefit of society ;
it never has been, and it never can be.
Senator Blair. — Do you not confuse this matter ?
A thing may be required for the good of society, and
for that very reason be in accordance with the will
and the command of God. God issues his commands
for the good of society, does he not ? God does not
give us commands that have no relation to the good
of society.
Mr. Jones. — His commands are for the good of man.
Senator Blair. — Man is society. It is made up of
individual men.
Mr. Jones.—But in that which God has issued to
man for the good of men he has given those things
which pertain solely to man's relationship to his God ;
and he has also given things which pertain to man's re-
lationship to his fellow-men. With those things in
which our duty pertains to our fellow-men, civil gov-
ernment can have something to do.
Senator Blair. — Man would obey God in obeying
civil society.
Mr. Jones. — I will come to that point. In the
things which pertain to our duty to God, with the indi-
vidual's right of serving• God as one's conscience dic-
tates, society has nothing to do ; but in the formation
of civil society, there are certain rights surrendered to
the society by the individual, without which society
could not be organized.
•
CIVIL GOVERNMENT A SOCIAL COMPACT. 13
Senator Blair. — That is not conceded. When was

this doctrine of a compact in society made ? It is the
philosophy of an infidel.
Mr. zones. It is made wherever you find men to-
gether.
Senator Blair. — Did you and I ever agree to it ?
Did it bind us before we were compos mentis?
Mr. Jones. — Certainly. Civil government is an or-
dinance of God.
Senator Blair. — Then it is not necessarily an agree-
ment of man ?
Mr. Jones. — Yes, sir, it springs from the people.
Senator Blair. —As to the compact in society that
is talked about, it is not conceded that it is a matter of
personal and individual agreement. Society exists al-
together independent of the volition of those who en-
ter into it. However, I shall not interrupt you further.
I only did this because of our private conversation,
in which I thought you Labored under a fallacy in your
fundamental proposition, that would lead all the way
through your argument. I suggested that ground, and
that is all.
Mr. Jones. — I think the statement of the Declara-
tion of Independence is true, that " Governments de-
rive their just powers from the consent of the gov-
erned."
Senator Blair. — I do not Controvert that.
Mr. Zones.— Of all men in the world, Americans
ought to be the last to deny the social compact theory
of civil government. On board the " Mayflower," be-
fore the Pilgrim Fathers ever set foot on these shores,
the following was written : —
" In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are
underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign,
14 THE NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW. '
Lord King James, by the grace of God, of Great

Britain, France, and Ireland, king, defender of the faith,
etc., having undertaken for the glory of God, and ad-
vancement of the Christian faith, and the honor of our
king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in
the northern parts of Virginia ; do by the-se presents,
solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one
another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a
civil body politick, for our better ordering and preser-
vation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid : and by vir-
tue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame such just and
equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and officers,
from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and con-
venient for the general good of the colony ; unto which
we promise all due submission and obedience. In wit-
ness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at
Cape Cod, the eleventh of November, in the reign of
our sovereign, Lord King James, of England, France,
and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland, the fifty-
fourth, Anno Domini, 1620."
The next American record is that of the funda-
mental orders of Connecticut, 1638-39, and reads as
follows : —
" Forasmuch as it bath pleased the Allmighty God by
the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence so to order
and dispose of things that we, the inhabitants and resi-
dents of Windsor, and Harteford, and Wethersfield, are
now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the river of
Conectecotte and the lands thereunto adioyneing ; and
well knowing where a people are gathered together the
word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and
vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and
decent gourment established acording to God, to order
and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons,
as occation shall require ; doe therefore assotiate and
conioyne ourselues to be as one publike State or common-
welth ; and doe for ourselues and our successors and such
as shall adioyned to vs att any tyre hereafter, enter into
combination and confederation together," etc.
CIVIL GOVERNMENT A SOCIAL COMPACT. l5
And, •sir, the first Constitution of your own State —

1781-- in its bill of rights, declares : —
" I. All men are born equally free and independent ;

therefore, all government of right originates from the
people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the gen-
eral good."
" III. When men enter into a state of society, they
surrender some of their natural rights to that society,
in order to insure the protection of others ; and with-
out such an equivalent, the surrender is. void.
"IV. Among the natural rights, some are in their
very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be
received for them. Of this kind are the rights of con-
science."
And in Part 2, of that same Constitution, under
the division of the " form of government," are these
words : —
" The people inhabiting the territory formerly called
the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and
mutually agree with each other to form themselves into
a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or
State, by the name of the State of New Hampshire."
In the Constitution of New Hampshire of 1792, these
articles are repeated word for word. They remain
there without alteration in a single letter under the rat-
ification of 1852, and also under the ratification of 1877.
Consequently, sir, the very State which sends you to
this capitol is founded upon the very theory which
you here deny. This is the doctrine of the Declaration
of Independence ; it is the doctrine of the Scripture ;
and therefore we hold it to be eternally true.
These sound and genuine American principles—
civil governments deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed, and the inalienability of the
rights of conscience,—these are the principles asserted

and maintained by Seventh-day Adventists.
Senator Blair. —But society is behind the govern-
ment which society creates.
Mr. Yones.—Certainly. All civil government springs
from the people, I care not in what form it is.
Senator Blair. —That is all agreed to.
Mr. Jones.— But the people, I care not how many
there are, have no right to invade your relationship to
God, nor mine. That rests between the individual and
God, through faith in Jesus Christ ; and as the Saviour
has made this distinction between that which pertains
to Caesar and that which is God's, when Cxsar exacts
of men that which pertains to God, then Cesar is out of
his place, and in so far as Csar is obeyed there, God
is denied. When Caesar — civil government — exacts of
men that which is God's, he demands what does not
belong to him ; in so doing Caesar usurps the place and
the prerogative of God, and every man who regards God
or his own rights before God, will disregard all such in-
terference on the part of Csar.
This argument is confirmed by the apostle's com-
mentary upon Christ's words. In Rom. 13 :1-9, is
written :—
" Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God : the powers that be
are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance of God : and they that
resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers
are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt
thou then not be afraid of the power ? do that which is
good, and thou shalt have praise of the same : for he is
the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do
that which is evil, be afraid ; for he beareth not the sword
in vain : for he is the minister of God, a revenger to ex-
ecute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye
WHAT TO GOD ? WHAT TO CtESAR ? 17
must needs be subject not only for wrath, but also for
conscience' sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute
also : for they are God's ministers, attending continually
upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their
dues : tribute to whom tribute is due ; custom to whom
custom ; fear to whom fear ; honor to whom honor.
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another : for he
that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this,
Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill,
Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Thou shalt not covet ; and if there be any other com-
mandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying,
namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
It is easy to see that this scripture is but an exposi-
tion of Christ's words, "Render therefore unto Cesar the
things which are Caesar's." In the Saviour's command
to render unto Caesar the things that are Csar's, there
is plainly a recognition of the rightfulness of civil gov-
ernment, and that civil government has claims upon
us which we are in duty bound to recognize, and that
there are things which duty requires us to render to
the civil government. This scripture in Romans 13
simply states the same thing in other words : " Let
every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For
there is no power but of God : the powers that be are
ordained of God."
Again : the Saviour's words were in answer to a
question concerning tribute. They said to him, " Is it
lawful to give tribute unto Csar, or not ?" Rom. 13 :
6 refers to the same thing, saying, " For, for this cause
pay ye tribute also : for they are God's ministers,
attending continually upon this very thing." In answer
to the question of the Pharisees about the tribute,
Christ said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things
which are• Cxsar's." Rom. 13 : 7, taking up the same
thought, says, "Render therefore to all their dues :
2
18 THE NATIONAL SUNDAY. LAW.
tribute to whom tribute is due ; custom to whom cus-

tom ; fear to whom fear ; honor to whom honor."
These references make positive that which we have
stated, — that this portion of Scripture (Rom. 13 : 1-9)
is a divine commentary upon the words of Christ in
Matt. 22 : 17-21.
The passage refers first to civil government, the
higher powers,— the powers that be. Next it speaks
of rulers, as bearing the sword and attending upon
matters of tribute. Then it commands to render trib-
ute to whom tribute is due, and says, " Owe no
man any thing ; but to love one another : for he that
loveth another hath fulfilled the law." Then he refers
to the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth com-
mandments, and says, " If there be any other com-
mandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying,
namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
There are other commandments of this same law to
which Paul refers. There are the four commandments
of the first table of the law, — the commandments
which say, " Thou shalt have no other gods before
me ;" " Thou shalt not make untcythee any graven image,
or any likeness of any thing ;" " Thou shalt not take the
name of the Lord thy God in vain ;" "Remember the
Sabbath day to keep it holy." Then there is the other
commandment in which are briefly comprehended all
these, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and
with all thy strength."
Paul knew full well these commandments. Why,
then, did he say, " If there be any other commandment,
it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" ? — Because he was
writing concerning the principles set forth by the Sav-
iour, which relate to our duties to civil government.
WHAT TO GOD - WHAT TO CiESAR 19
Our duties under civil government pertain solely to

the government and to our fellow-men, because the
powers of civil government pertain solely to men in
their relations one to another, and to the government.
But the Saviour's words in the same connection entirely
separated that which pertains to God from that which
pertains to civil government. The things which per-
tain to God are not to be rendered to civil government
— to the powers that be ; therefore Paul, although
knowing full well that there were other commandments,
said, " If there be any other commandment, it is briefly
comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself ; " that is, if there be any other
commandment which comes into the relation between
man and civil government, it is comprehended in this
saying, that he shall love his neighbor as himself; thus
showing conclusively that the powers that be, though
ordained of God, are so ordained simply in things per-
taining to the relation of man with his fellow-men, and
in those things alone.
Further : as in this divine record of the duties that
men owe to the powers that be, there is no reference
whatever to the first table of the law, it therefore fol-
lows that the powers that be, although ordained of God,
have nothing whatever to do with the relations which
men bear toward God.
As the ten commandments contain the whole duty
of man, and as in the enumeration here given of the
duties that men owe to the powers that be, there is
no mention of any of the things contained in the first
table of the law, it follows that none of the duties
enjoined in the first table of the law of God, do men
owe to the powers that be ; that is to say, again, that
the powers that be, although ordained of God, are not
ordained of God in anything pertaining to a single duty
enjoined in any one of the first four of the ten com-

mandments. These are duties that men owe to God,
and with these the powers that be can of right have
nothing to do, because Christ has commanded to ren-
der unto God --not to Caesar, nor by Caesar — that
which is God's. Therefore, as in his comment upon
the principle which Christ established, Paul has left
out of the account the first four commandments, so we
deny, forever, the right of any civil government to leg-
islate in anything that pertains to men's duty to God
under the first four commandments. This Sunday bill
does propose to legislate in regard to the Lord's day.
If it is the Lord's day, we are to render it to the Lord,
not to Csar. When Caesar exacts it of us, he is ex-
acting what does not belong to him, and is demand-
ing of us that with which he should have nothing to do.
Senator Blair.— Would it answer your objection in
•that regard, if, instead of saying " the Lord's day," we
should say, " Sunday "?
Mr. yones. —No, sir. Because the underlying prin-
ciple, the sole basis, of Sunday, is ecclesiastical, and
legislation in regard to it is ecclesiastical legislation.
I shall come more fully to the question you ask,
presently.
Now do not misunderstand us on this point. We
are Seventh-day Adventists ; but if this bill were in
favor of enforcing the observance of the seventh day
as the Lord's day, we would oppose it just as much
as we oppose it as it is now, for the reason that civil
government has nothing to do with what we owe to
God, or whether we owe anything or not, or whether we
pay it or not.
Allow me again to refer to the words of Christ to
emphasize this point. At that time the question was
THE SABBATH NOT DUE TO CIESAR. 21
upon the subject of tribute, whether it was lawful to

give tribute to Cesar or not. In answering the ques-
tion, Christ established this principle : " Render there-
fore unto Caesar the things which are Csar's, and unto
God the things that are God's." That tribute money
was Cmsar's ; it bore his image and superscription ; it
was to be rendered to him. Now, it is a question of
rendering Sabbath observance, and it is a perfectly le-
gitimate and indeed a necessary question to ask right
here : Is it lawful to render Lord's day observance to
Cmsar ? The reply may be in His own words : Show me
the Lord's day ; whose image and superscription does
it bear ?— The Lord's, to be sure. This very bill
which is under discussion here to-day declares it to
be the Lord's day. Then the words of Christ apply
to this. Bearing the image and superscription of the
Lord, Render therefore to the Lord the things that are
the Lord's, and to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. It
does not bear the image and superscription of Caesar ;
it does not belong to him ; it is not to be rendered to
him.
Again : take the institution under the word Sab-
bath : Is it lawful to render Sabbath observance to
Cesar or not ? Show us the Sabbath ; whose image
and superscription does it bear ? The commandment
of God says, it " is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God."
It bears his image and superscription, and his only ; it
belongs wholly to him ; Caesar can have nothing to do
with it. It does not belong to Cmsar ; its observance
cannot be rendered to Cmsar, but only to God ; for the
commandment is, " Remember the Sabbath day, to keep
it holy." If it is not kept holy, it is not kept at all.
Therefore, belonging to God, bearing his superscription,
and not that of Cesar, according to Christ's command-
ment, it is to be rendered only to God ; because we are

to render to God that which is God's, and the Sabbath
is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Sabbath observ-
ance, therefore, or Lord's day observance, whichever
you may choose to call it, never can be rendered to
Caesar. And Caesar never can demand it without de-
manding that which belongs to God, or without putting
himself in the place of God, and usurping the preroga-
tive of God.
Therefore, we say that if this bill were framed in
behalf of the real Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh
day, the day- which we observe ; if this bill proposed
to promote its observance, or to compel men to do no
work upon that day, we would oppose it just as strongly
as we oppose it now, and I would stand here at this
table and argue precisely as I am arguing against this,
and upon the same principle, — the principle estab-
lished by Jesus Christ, —that with that which is God's
the civil government never can of right have anything
to do. That duty rests solely between man and God ;
and if any man does not render it to God, he is
responsible only to God, and not to any man, nor to
any assembly or organization of men, for his failure or
refusal to render it to God ; and any power that under-
takes to punish that man for his failure or refusal to
render to God what is God's, puts itself in the place of
God. Any government which attempts it, sets itself
against the word of Christ, and is therefore antichris-
tian. This Sunday bill proposes to have this. Govern-
ment do just that thing, and therefore I say, without
any reflection upon the author of the bill, this national
Sunday bill which is under discussion here to-day is
antichristian. But in saying this I am not singling out
this contemplated law as worse than all other Sunday
CIVIL SABBATH LAWS ANTICHRISTIAN. 23
laws in the world. There never was a Sunday law that

was not antichristian, and there never can be one that
will not be antichristian.
Senator Blair. — You oppose all the Sunday laws of
the country, then ?
Mr. Jones. — Yes, sir.
Senator Blair. — You are against all Sunday laws ?
Mr. Jones.— Yes, sir ; we are against every Sun-
day law that was ever made in this world, from the
first enacted by Constantine to this one now proposed ;
and we would be equally against a Sabbath law if it
were proposed, for that would be antichristian, too.
Senator Blair. — State and national, alike ?
Mr. Jones. — State and national, sir. I shall give
you historical reasons presently, and the facts upon
which these things stand, and I hope they will receive
consideration.
George Washington, I believe, is yet held in some
respectful consideration — he is by the Seventh-day
Adventists at least — and he said, " Every man who
conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable alone
to God for his religious faith, and is to be protected in
worshiping God according to the dictates of his own
conscience." And so should we be protected, so long
as we are law-abiding citizens. There are no saloon
keepers among us. We are as a body for prohibition
and as for the principles of Christian temperance, we
conscientiously practice them. In short, you will find
no people in this country or in the world, more peaceable
and law-abiding than we endeavor to be. We teach the
people according to the Scripture, to be subject to the
powers that be ; we teach them that the highest duty of
the Christian citizen is strictly to obey the law, — to
obey it not from fear of punishment, but out of respect
for governmental authority, and out of respect for God,

and conscience toward him.
Senator Blair.— That is the common Mormon
argument. The Mormons say their institution is a
matter of religious belief. Everybody concedes their
right to believe in Mormonism, but when they come
to the point of practicing it, will it not be to the dis-
turbance of others ?
Mr. zones. — I should have come to that, even
though you had not asked the question. But as you
have introduced it, I will notice it now. My argument
throughout is that the civil government can never have
anything to do with men's duties under the first four of
the ten commandments ; and this is the argument em-
bodied in Washington's words. These duties pertain
solely to God. Now polygamy is adultery. But adul-
tery is not a duty that men owe to God, in any way,
much less does it come under any of the first four com-
mandments. This comes within the inhibitions of the
second table of the law of God—the commandments em-
bracing .duty-to our neighbor. How men should con-
duct themselves toward their fellow-men, civil govern-
ment must decide ; that is the very purpose of its exist-
ence. Consequently, the practice of polygamy lying
wholly within this realm, is properly subject to the ju-
risdiction of civil government. My argument does not
in the least degree countenance the principles of Mor-
monism; nor can it fairly be made to do so. I know
that it is offered as a very ready objection ; but those
who offer it as an objection and as an argument against
the principles upon which we stand, thereby make adul-
tery a religious practice. But against all such objection
and argument, I maintain that adultery is not in any sense
a religious practice. It is not only highly irreligious,
THE CIVIL. POWER ENFORCES CIVILITY. 25
but it is essentially uncivil ; and because it is uncivil,

the civil power has as much right to blot it out as it has
to punish murder, or thieving, or.perjury, or any other
uncivil thing. Moreover, we deny that honest occupa-
tions on any day of the week, or at any time whatever,
can ever properly be classed with adultery.
There are also people who believe in community of
property in this world. Suppose they base their prin-
ciples of having all things in common upon the apos-
tolic example. Very good. They have the right to do
that. Every one who sells his property and puts it into
a common fund, has a right to do that if he chooses ;
but suppose these men in carrying out that principle,
and in claiming that it is a religious ordinance, were to
take without consent your property or mine into their
community. Then what ? — The State forbids it. It
does not forbid the exercise of their religion ; but it
protects your property and mine, and in exercising its
prerogative of protection, it forbids theft. And in for-
bidding theft, the State never asks any questions as to
whether thieving is a religious practice. So also as to
polygamy, which is practiced among the Mormons.
But let us consider this in another view.
It is every man's right in this country, or anywhere
else, to worship an idol if he chooses. That idol em-
bodies his conviction of what God is. He can worship
only according to his convictions. It matters not what
form his idol may have, he has the right to worship it
anywhere in all the world, therefore in the United
States. But suppose that in the worship of that god he
attempts to take the life of one of his fellow-men, and of-
fer it as a human sacrifice. The civil government exists
for the protection of life, liberty, property, etc., and it
must punish that man for his attempt upon the life of
his fellow-man. The civil law protects man's life from

such exercise of any one's religion, but in punishing the
offender, the State does not consider the question of his
religion at all. It would punish him just the same if he
made no pretensions to worship or to religion. It pun-
ishes him for his incivility, for his attempt at murder,
not for his irreligion. I repeat, the question of religion
is not considered by the State ; the sole question is,
Did he threaten the life of his fellow-man ? Civil gov-
ernment must protect its citizens. This is strictly
within Caesar's jurisdiction ; it comes within the line of
duties which the Scripture shows to pertain to our
neighbor, and with it Caesar has to do.
Therefore it is true that the State can never of right
legislate in regard to any man's religious faith, or in re-
lation to anything in the first four commandments of
the decalogue. But if in the exercise of his religious
convictions under the first four commandments, a man
invades the rights of his neighbor, as to life, family,
property, or chaiacter, then the civil government says
that it is unlawful. Why ? Because it is irreligious or
immoral ? — Not at all ; but because it is uncivil, and
for that reason only. It never can be proper for the
State to ask any question as to whether any man is re-
ligious or not, or whether his actions are religious or
not. The sole question must ever be, Is the action
civil or uncivil.
Senator Blair. —Now apply that right to this case
— to the institution of the Sabbath among men for the
good of men.
Mr. Jones. — Very good, we will consider that.
Here are persons who are keeping Sunday. It is their
right to work on every other day of the week. It is
their right to work on that day, if they desire ; but they
SUNDAY-LAW INCONSISTENCY. 27
are keeping that day, recognizing it as the Sabbath.

Now while they are doing that which is their right,
here are other people who are keeping Saturday, and -
others who are keeping Friday. The Mohammedans
recognize Friday. But we will confine ourselves to
those who keep Saturday, the seventh day, as the Sab-
bath. Those who keep Sunday, and who want legisla-
tion for that day, ask that other people shall be for-
bidden to work on Sunday, because they say it disturbs
their rest, it disturbs their worship, etc. ; and they
claim that their rights are not properly protected.
Do they really believe that in principle ? Let us see.
They will never admit (at any rate, I have never yet
found one of them who would) that their work on Sat-
urday disturbs the rest, or the worship, of the man.who
rests on Saturday. If their work on Saturday does not
disturb the Sabbath rest, or the worship, of the man
who keeps Saturday, then upon what principle is it that
our work on Sunday disturbs the rest of those who keep
Sunday ? I have never found one on that side yet who
would admit the principle. If their work does not dis-
turb our rest and our worship, our work cannot disturb
their rest or their worship. More than this : In a gen-
eral Sunday convention held in San Francisco, at which
I was present, there was a person who spoke on this
very question. Said he : "There are some people, and a
good many of them in this State, who do not believe in
Sunday laws, and who keep Saturday as the Sabbath ;
but," said he, " the majority must rule.. The vast ma-
jority of the people do keep Sunday ; their rights must
be respected, and they have a right to enact it into
law." I arose and said, " Suppose the Seventh-day
people were in the majority, and they should go to the
legislature and ask for a law to compel you to keep
Saturday out of respect to their rights. Would you

consider it right ? " There was a murmur all over the
house, " No."
Senator Blair. — Upon what ground did they say,
No?
Mr. Yones.—That is what I should like to know.
They were not logical. Their answer shows that there
is no ground in justice nor in right for their claim that
the majority should rule in matters of conscience.
Senator Blair. — That does not follow. At least it
does not strike me that it follows. The majority has a
right to rule in what pertains to the regulation of so-
ciety, and if C2esar regulates society, then the ma-
jority has a right in this country to say what we shall
render to Cesar.
Mr. Janes.— Very good, but the majority has no
right to say what we shall render to God ; nor has it
any right to say that we shall render to Cesar that
which is God's. If nine hundred and ninety-nine out
of every one thousand people in the United States kept
the seventh day, that is, Saturday, and I deemed it my
right, and made it my choice, to keep Sunday, they
would have no right to compel me to rest on Saturday.
Senator Blair. —In other words, you take. the ground
that for the good of society, irrespective of the religious
aspect of the question, society may not require absti-
nence from labor on Sabbath, if it, disturbs others ?
Mr. Jones.— As to its disturbing others, I have
proved that it does not. The body of your question
states my position exactly.
Senator Blair. — You are logical all the way through
that there shall be no Sabbath. This question was
passed me to ask : "Is the speaker also opposed to all
laws against blasphemy ?"
LAWS AGAINST 13LAS1'HEMV. 29
Mr. yones.—Y es, sir. But not because blasphemy

is not wrong, but because civil government cannot de-
fine blasphemy, nor punish-it. Blasphemy pertains to
God, it is an offense against him, it is a sin against him.
Senator Blair. — Suppose the practice of it in society
at large is hurtful to society ?
Mr. Zones.— That will have to be explained. How
is it hurtful to society ?
Senator Blair.— Suppose it be hurtful to society in
this way : A belief in the existence of God, and rever-
ence for the Creator, and a cultivation of that sentiment
in society, is for the good of society ; is, in fact, the basis
of all law and restraint. If the Almighty, who knows
everything, or is supposed to, and has all power, has no
right to restrain us, it is difficult to see how we can re-
strain each other.
Mr. 5ones. — He has the right to restrain us. He
does restrain us.
Senator Blair. — To commonly blaspheme and de-
ride and ridicule the Almighty, would, of course, have
a tendency to bring up the children who are soon to
be the State, in an absolute disregard of him and his
authority. Blasphemy, as I understand it, is that prac-
tice which brings the Creator into contempt and ridi-
cule among his creatures.
Mr. yones.— What is blasphemy here, would not
be blasphemy in China, and many other countries.
Senator Blair.—We are not dealing with pagan
communities. A regulation that may be appropriate in
a pagan community, would not answer men in a Chris-
tian community. Do you mean that there is no such
thing as blasphemy ?
Mr. zones.—No; I do not mean that.
Senator Blair. — The Chinaman hardly believes in
30 TtlE NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW.
any god whatever ; at least in no such God as we do.

Taking our God and these Christian institutions of ours,
what do you understand blasphemy to be ?
Mr. zones. —There are many things that the Script-
ures show to be blasphemy.
Senator Blair. — The power of the law has under:
taken in various States to say that certain things are
blasphemy.
Mr. Zones.— Precisely ; but if the law proposes to
define blasphemy and punish it, why does it not go to
the depth of it, and define all and punish all ?
Senator Blair. — Perhaps it may not go as far as it
ought. You say you are opposed to all laws against
blasphemy, cursing, and swearing ?
Mr. zones. — In relation to any one of the first four
commandments.
Senator Palmer. — Suppose that what is defined as
blasphemy in the statutes of the several States, should
detract from the observance of the law and regard for
it, would you regard laws against it as being improper ?
Mr. Jones.— Under the principle that the Scripture
lays down, no legislation in any way can be proper in
regard to the first four commandments. There may be
many ways in which it would appear very appropri-
ate for civil government to do this or to do that ; but
when you have entered upon such legislation, where
will you stop ?
Senator Palmer. — Abstaining from blasphemy is a
part of the education of the youth of the country.
Mr. Jones. —That is true. If youth are properly
educated, they will never blaspheme.
Senator Palmer. — We pass laws for the education
of the youth. The question is whether abstention
from blasphemy could not be included in the scope of
education. Take it on that ground.
LAWS AGAINST BLASPHEMY. 31
Mr. zones. — Idolatry (and covetousness is idol-

atry) is no more than a violation of the first command-
ment : " Thou shalt have no other Gods before me ;"
and if the State can forbid the violation of the third
commandment and the fourth, why may it not forbid
the violation of the first and the second, and in that
case supplant God at once, and establish an earthly
theocracy ? That is the only logical outcome.
Senator Blair. — Covetousness is a state of mind ;
but when it becomes practice by stealing—taking from
another without consideration —the law interferes.
Mr. Zones.— Certainly.
Senator Palmer. — There is an infection in blas-
phemy or in covetousness. For instance, if one covet-
ous man in a neighborhood should infuse the whole
neighborhood with covetousness to such an extent that
all would become thieves, then covetousness would be
a proper subject of legislation.
Mr. zones. — Never ! You forbid the theft, not the
covetousness. You cannot invade the condition of
mind in which lies the covetousness.
Senator Blair. —W e do not say that we must invade
the condition of mind ; but society has a right to make
regulations, because those regulations are essential to
the good of society. Society by a major vote estab-
lishes a regulation, and we have to obey what is settled
by the majority.
Mr. zones. — How shall it be discovered what is
blasphemy, as it is only an offense against God ? In
the Puritan Theocracy of New England, our historian,
Bancroft, says that " the highest offense in the catalogue
of crimes was blasphemy, or what a jury should call
blasphemy."
Senator Blair. —But the law was behind the jury,
and said that the practice should be punished. If a
jury of twelve men said that one had committed the

overt act, then it could be punished. It was the major-
ity who made the law, and the jury only found the
question of fact after the law had been violated. The
jury did not make the law. This is a question as to
making the law.
Mr. zones. — It is not wholly a question only of
making the law. The question is whether the law is
right when it is made. There is a limit to the law-
making power ; and that limit is the line which Jesus
Christ has drawn. The government has no right to
make any law relating to the things that pertain to
God, or offenses against God, or religion. It has noth-
ing to do with religion.
Blasphemy, according to Judge Cooley, in his " Con-
stitutional Limitations," " is purposely using words con-
cerning the Supreme Being, calculated and designed to
impair and destroy the reverence, respect, and confi-
dence due to him, as the intelligent CreatOr, Governor,
and Judge of the world ; . . . a bad motive must exist ;
there must be a willful, malicious attempt to lessen
men's reverence for the Deity, or for the accepted
ligion."
It is seen at a glance that this comes from the old
English system of statutes regulating " offenses against
God and religion." That is where this statute is placed
in every system of civil law ; it could not be placed any-
where else. But offenses against God are to be an-
swered for only at his tribunal ; and with religion, or
offenses against it, the civil power has nothing to do.
It is a perversion of the functions of civil government
to have it made a party to religious controversies. It
will have ample exercise for its power and jurisdiction
to keep religious disputants as well as other people civil,
LAWS AGAINST nLASPHEMY. 33
without allowing itself ever to become a partisan in re-

ligious disputes and the conservator of religious dogmas.
But according to Judge Cooley's definitiOn, bias-,
phemy is an attempt to lessen men's reverence, not only
for the Deity, but for "the accepted religion" as well.
But any man in this wide world has the right to lessen
men's reverence for the accepted religion, if he thinks
that religion to be wrong. Consequently, as I said a
moment ago, that which would be counted blasphemy
here would not be counted blasphemy in China ; and
that which is in the strictest accordance with the word
of God and the faith of Jesus Christ here, is necessarily
blasphemy in China, or in Turkey, or in Russia. A man
who preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ in China com-
mits blasphemy under this definition. He does make a
willful attempt to lessen men's reverence for their ac-
cepted religion, and for the deities recognized in their
religion. He has to do so, if he is ever to get them to
believe in Christ and the religion of Christ. He has to
bring them to the place where they will have no rever-
ence for their deities or for their accepted religion, be-
fore they ever can accept the religion of Jesus Christ.
It is the same way in Turkey, or any other Moham-
medan country, or any heathen country. Wherever the
gospel of Jesus Christ is preached in any Mohammedan
or heathen country, it is blasphemy under this defini-
tion, because its sole object is not only to lessen men's
reverence for their deities and for their accepted relig-
ion, but to turn them wholly from it, and if possible to
obliterate it from their minds.
It is so likewise in Russia. Anybody there who
speaks against the accepted religion, or against the
saints, or their images, is subject to the penalty of blas-
phemy, which is banishment for life to Siberia.
3
But if blasphemy be a proper subject of legislation

by civil government, if it be right for a government to
make itself the " defender of the faith," then it is per-
fectly proper for the laws of China to prohibit under
whatever penalty it pleases, the preaching of the gospel
of Jesus Christ within the Chinese dominions ; because
its effect is to lessen men's reverence for the deities
recognized by China, and for the accepted religion
of the country. It is the same way in any of the
other countries named. And in that case there is no
such thing as persecution on account of religion. The
only persecutions that have ever been, were because
of men's speaking against the accepted religion. If
this principle be correct, then the Roman empire did
perfectly right in prohibiting under penalty of death
the preaching of the religion of Jesus Christ. When-
ever Paul, or any of his brethren, spoke in the Roman
empire, they blasphemed according to the Roman law.
They were held as blasphemers, and were put to
death under the very principle of this definition, which
is the principle of the American statutes on the subject
of blasphemy. The Christians had to tell the Roman
empire that the Roman gods were no gods. They had
to tell the Roman empire that the genius of Rome itself,
which the Roman system held to be the supreme deity,
was not such ; but that it was subordinate, and that
there was a higher idea of God and of right than the
Roman empire or the Roman law knew anything of.
They did speak deliberately against the chief deity of
Rome, and all the gods of Rome. They did it with
the express purpose of destroying reverence for them
and for the accepted religion. Rome put them to death.
And I repeat, if the principle of the American statutes
against blasphemy is correct, then Rome did right.
LAWS AGAINst 35
To make this clearer, I quote a passage from the

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in defense of this prin-
ciple, in a decision upon this very subject, which says :
"To prohibit the open, public, and explicit denial of
the popular religion of a country, „is a necessary meas-
ure to preserve the tranquillity of a government."
That is precisely what the Roman empire did. Chris-
tianity did openly, publicly, and explicitly deny the
popular religion of the country. It did it with intent
to destroy men's reverence for the deities and the
religion of that country. Rome prohibited it ; and
upon the principle of the decision of the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, which is the principle of Amer-
ican law on blasphemy, Rome did right, and Chris-
tianity was a blaspheming religion. The principle of
this decision seems to be that those who represent the
popular religion of a country have so little of the real
virtue of the religion which they profess, that if any-
body speaks against it, it is sure to rouse their com-
bativeness to such a degree as to endanger the public
tranquillity. Therefore, in order to keep civil those
who represent the popular religion, the State must
forbid anybody to deny that religion.
This decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
is one of the grand precedents that have been fol-
lowed in all the later decisions upon this subject in
the younger States ; but this decision itself followed
one by Chief Justice Kent of the Supreme Court of
New York in 1811, in which he embodies the same
principles. He defends the right of the State to punish
such offenses against what he calls a Christian people,
and not equally to punish like offenses against the
religion of other people in this country, by the follow-
ing argument :—
36 THE NATIONAL SH.NbAY LAW
" Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Con-

stitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not
to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like
attacks upon the religion of Mohammed, or of the
Grand Llama, and for this plain reason : that the case
assumes that we axe a Christian people, and the mor-
ality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Chris-
tianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those
impostors."
This is only to argue that if the morality of the coun-
try were engrafted upon the religion of Mohammed or
the Grand Llama, and Christians were to speak against
and deny that accepted religion, it would be proper
that the State should punish those Christians for so do-
ing. If that principle be correct, then a Mohammedan
country has the right to prohibit the preaching of the
gospel of Jesus Christ within its limits.
According to these decisions, Luther and the reform-
ers of his day were blasphemers. The penalty was
death, in many cases at the stake, yet under this princi-
ple the State did right to put them to death in whatever
way the law prescrilied ; because they did certainly
make an open, public, and explicit denial of the popular
religion of every country in which they lived, and of all
Europe ; and if the words of Luther were used to-day
in any Catholic country, they would be counted as blas-
phemous, as a willful and malicious reviling of the ac-
cepted religion. The reformers did hold up to ridicule
and contempt the popular religion of all Europe. They
did right, too ; and when the State punished them, it
was but carrying out the principles upheld by Chan-
cellor Kent and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,
and all the other States that have legislated on the sub-
ject of religion.
As I have already stated, it was upon this principle
precisely that the Roman empire forbade the preaching
of the gospel of Christ. It only forbade an open, pub-

lic, and explicit denial of the popular religion of the
country, yet in forbidding that, it forbade the preaching
of the gospel of Christ. But Christ sent forth his dis-
ciples to preach the gospel to every creature, and they
did it in the face of the Roman law, and in opposition
to the whole power of the Roman empire ; and every-
body in all the world has an undeniable right to make
an open, public, and explicit denial of the popular re-
ligion of this country, or any other, if he thinks that re-
ligion to be wrong.
The principle of these decisions and of the civil stat-
utes against blasphemy, is essentially a pagan principle,
and not a Christian principle. It is peculiarly ap-
propriate, therefore, that Chief Justice Kent not only
cited the precedents of the church-and-state principles
of the colonies and of the British government, but ap-
pealed to the pagan governments of antiquity and the
papal institutions of modern Europe, as the basis of his
decision. It is true that all these nations have set
themselves up as the special guardians of their dei-
ties, and have prohibited the denial of the popular relig-
ion ; and it is equally true that all these nations have
resisted every step in enlightenment and progress
that has ever been made in the march of time. Every
step forward in religion and in enlightenment has of ne-
cessity been taken in the face of all the opposition which
these States and empires could bring to bear. But the
principles of American institutions are neither pagan
nor papal. The principles of the American Constitu-
tion which forbids legislation on the subject of relig-
ion, are Christian principles. And it is strictly in order
for Supreme Courts in making decisions in behalf of
what they boast of as the Christian religion, to base
their decision upon something else than the course of
the pagan governments of antiquity, and the papal in-

stitutions of modern Europe. Upon such a subject it
would seem to be proper for them to refer to the teach-
ings and the principles of the Author of Christianity,
but •singularly enough, it has never been done, and
doubtless for the very good reason that it never can be
done ; for the teachings of Jesus Christ are directly
against it. His word forbids civil government to have
anything to do with what pertains to God. And in-
stead of teaching his disciples to prosecute, to fine, and
to punish by civil law those who speak against them or
their religion, he says, " Love your enemies, do good to
them that hate you, pray for them that despitefully. use
you and persecute you ; that ye may be the children of
your Father which is in heaven." How can men be
brought to respect God or Jesus Christ by civil penalties
upon their bodies and goods ? How can they respect
the religion of men who are ready to prosecute and im-
prison them ? Every principle of the thing is contrary
both to the spirit and the letter o'f Christianity. The
religion of Jesus Christ properly exemplified in the
daily lives of those who profess it, is the best argument
and the strongest defense against blasphemy, both as
defined by the Scriptures and by the civil statutes.
Laws, therefore, prohibiting " what a jury may call
blasphemy," are pagan, and not Christian. The decis-
ions of the Supreme Courts of New York and Pennsyl-
vania upon this subject are pagan decisions, and not
Christian ; they are based upon pagan precedents, not
Christian. The deadly persecutions of all history, pa-
gan, papal, and so-called Protestant, are justified in
these decisions. Michael Servetus was burnt for " blas-
phemy." The only use that ever has been, or ever is,
made of any such laws in any country, is to give some
religious bigots who profess the popular religion, an op-

portunity to vent their wrath upon persons who disagree
with them. Any man who really possesses the religion
of Christ will have enough of the grace of God to keep
him from endangering the public tranquillity when his
religion is spoken against.
Therefore, I say that we are opposed to all laws of
civil government against blasphemy, not because blas-
phemy is not wrong, but because it is a wrong of that
kind with which civil government has nothing to do ;
and in this we stand wholly upon Christian principle.
We stand exactly where the early Christians stood ;
for, I say again, when Paul spoke' in the Roman empire,
he was blaspheming, according to the law, was held
as a blasphemer and an atheist, and was put to death-
as such, under the very principle upon•which the Amer-
ican laws of blasphemy are sustained.
Senator Blair. — The law was wrong, you say ?
Mr. Zones.— Certainly the law was wrong. The
Roman law was that no man should have particular
gods of his own, — gods not recognized by the Roman
law.
Senator Blair. — That law was not for the good of
society ?
Mr. zones. —No, sir.
Senator Blair. — Certainly it was not. Then you
have to repeal the law or obey it.
Mr. zones. — It ought to be repealed.
Senator Blair.—During these eighteen hundred
years we have contrived to repeal that law ; but here
comes an intelligent people who have evolved among
themselves, as the result of a thousand or fifteen hun-
dred years of history, among other things, the institu-
tion of the Christian Sabbath, by writing it in the
laws of every State in this country, so that the whole

American people made up of communities or States,
have enacted the principle of this law.
Mr. zones.--The same principle is under the bill
before the Committee. There is the same principle
under it all. If you can legislate in regard to the Sab-
bath, you can legislate in regard to blasphemy ; you
can legislate in regard to idolatry, and every other
offense against God, as did both the Puritan and the
papal theocracy.
Senator Blair.— You deny the right of the majority,
in other words, to make a law in conformity with which
the whole shall practice in society ?
Mr. Jones. — I deny the right of any civil govern-
ment to make 4ny law respecting anything that per-
tains to man's 'relationship to his God, under the first
four of the ten commandments. I wish right here to
show further that this .is not only the principle of the
word of Jesus Christ, but also of the American Con-
stitution.
Before Christianity was preached in the world, the
Roman empire had among its laws these statutes : —
" 1. No man shall have for himself particular gods of
his own ; no man shall worship by himself any new or
foreign gods, unless they are recognized by the public
laws.
"2. Worship the gods in all respects according to
the laws of your country, and compel all others to do
the same. But hate and punish those who would intro-
duce anything whatever alien to our customs in this
particular.
" 3. Whoever introduces new religions, the tendency
and character of which are unknown, whereby the minds
of men may be disturbed, shall, if belonging to the
higher rank, be banished ; if to the lower, punished with
death."
CHRISTIANITY AND ROMAN LAW. 41
The Christians did have a particular God of their own,

not recognized by the Roman law. They did introduce
a new religion. The Roman empire enforced the law,
and that is why the Christians were put to death. If
things pertaining to God be a proper subject of legisla-
tion by civil government, then no Christian was ever
persecuted, and there has never been persecution in this
world. All the Roman empire did in killing Christians
was to enforce the law. Then the question was with the
Christians, at that time, and the question is with us, Is
not the law wrong ? and did not the Christians have the
right to attack the law ? That is what they did. When
a Christian was brought before the magistrate, a dia-
logue followed something like this : —
Magistrate.—" Have you a particular God of your
own, — a god not recognized by the Roman law ?"
Christian.—" Yes."
M.—" Did you not know that the law is against it ?"
C.— " Yes."
M. —" Have you not introduced a new religion ?"
C. " Yes."
M. — " Did you not know that the law is against it ?"
C. " Yes."
M.—" Did you not know that the penalty is death,
for those of the lower ranks ?"
C. — "Yes."
M. — " You are of the lower ranks ?"
C. — " Yes."
M.—" You have introduced a new religion ?" -
C. — " Yes."
M.—"You have a God of your own ?"
.C. —"Yes."
M. — " What is the penalty ?"
C. — "Death."
That was all. The Romans enforced the law upon the
Christians in the first days of Christianity ; and there
}vas no persecution in it, if the principle be recognized
that civil government has a right to legislate in religious

things. The empire had this apparent advantage, too,
that the law existed before Christianity was known in
the world. Christianity appeared to Rome as nothing
else than an uprising against the imperial power. Laws
are made to be enforced ; and to enforce the law is all
that the Roman empire ever did, whether up to the time
of Constantine, or at any other time. In fact, all the
papacy did in the Middle Ages was to have the emper-
ors enforce the law. We stand to-day just where the
Christians did at that time ; we come to the root of the
whole matter, and deny the, right of the civil. govern-
ment to legislate on anything that pertains to our duties
to God under the first four commandments, and assert
the Christian and American principle that every man
has the right to worship God according to the dictates
of his own conscience.
The principle that the Christians asserted was to
render to Cesar that which is Csar's, and to deny the
right of Csar to demand anything that pertains to
God. They gave their lives in support of that prin-
ciple, against the law of the Roman empire, and against
the very existence of the Roman empire. This prin-
ciple was asserted and maintained until it forced the
Roman empire, with all its power, to recognize the right
of every man to have a particular god of his own, and
to worship that god as he chose. The Roman empire did
come in the days of Constantine and Licinius to that
point. At the death of Galerius, it was decreed in the
Roman law, by the emperors Constantine and Licinius
in the Edict of Milan, that every man should be at lib-
erty to have any god he pleased, and worship him as
he pleased. But it was the Christian principle that
forced the. Roman empire to that point in the face of all
its laws and institutions of ages.
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 43
Our national Constitution embodies the very prin-

ciple announced by Jesus Christ, that the civil govern-
ment shall have nothing to do with religion, or with
what pertains to God ; but shall leave that to every
man's conscience and his God. As long as he is a
good citizen, the nation will protect him and leave
him perfectly free to worship whom he pleases, when
he pleases, as he pleases, or not to worship at all, if he
pleases.
In Article VI. of the Constitution of the United
States, this nation says that "no religious test shall
ever be required as a qualification to any office or pub-
lic trust under the United States." By an amendment
making more certain the adoption of the principle, it
declares in the first amendment to the Constitution,
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establish-
ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there-
of." This first amendment was adopted in 1789, by the
first Congress that ever met under the Constitution. In
1796 a treaty was made with Tripoli, in which it was de-
clared (Article II.) that "the Government of the United
States of America is not in any sense founded on the
Christian religion." This treaty was framed by an ex-
Congregationalist clergyman, and was signed by Presi-
dent Washington. It was not out of disrespect to
religion or Christianity that these clauses were placed
in the Constitution, and that this one was inserted in
that treaty. On the contrary, it was entirely on ac-
count of their respect for religion, and the Christian
religion in particular, as being beyond the province of
civil government, pertaining solely to the conscience,
and resting entirely between the individual and God.
This fact is so well stated by Mr. Bancroft in his " His-
tory of the Constitution of the United States," that I
will here insert it : —
" In the earliest States known to history, govern-

ment and religion were one and indivisible. Each
State had its special deity, and often these protectors,
one after another, might be overthrown in battle, never
to rise again. The Peloponnesian War grew out of a
strife about an oracle. Rome, as it sometimes adopted
into citizenship those whom it vanquished, introduced
in like manner, and with good logic for that day, the
worship of their gods. No one thought of vindicating
religion for the conscience of the individual, till a voice
in Judea, breaking day for the greatest epoch in the
life of humanity, by establishing a pure, spiritual, and
universal religion for all mankind, enjoined to render
to Cxsar only that which is Caesar's. The rule was
upheld during the infancy of the gospel for all men.
No sooner was this religion adopted by the chief of
the Roman empire, than it was shorn of its character
of universality, and enthralled by an unholy connection
with the unholy State ; and so it continued till the new
nation, — the least defiled with the barren scoffings of
the eighteenth century, the most general believer in
Christianity of any people of that age, the chief heir of
the Reformation in its purest forms, — when it came to
establish a government for the United States, refused
to treat faith as a matter to be regulated by a corporate
body, or having a headship in a monarch or a State.
" Vindicating the right of individuality even in relig-
ion, and in religion above all, the new nation dared to
set the example of accepting in its relations to God the
principle first divinely ordained of God in Judea. It
left the management of temporal things to the tem-
poral power ; but the American Constitution, in har-
mony with the people of the several States, withheld
from the Federal Government the power to invade the
home of reason, the citadel of conscience, the sanct-
uary of the soul; and not from indifference, but that
the infinite Spirit of eternal truth might move in its
freedom and purity and power."—Last chapter.
At this point I am brought to the assertion of the
second of the principles upon which we stand in our
SUNDAY LAWS RELIGIOUS LtGiSLATTON. 45
opposition to Sunday laws, or any other form of relig-

ious legislation : that is, the principle of the Constitu-
tion of the United States ; and upon this principle I
maintain that this proposed Sunday law is unconstitu-
tional.
The object of this Sunday bill is wholly religious.
The last section shows the object of the entire bill ;
and that is, " to secure to the whole people rest, . . .
and the religious observance of the Sabbath day." No
one, therefore, need attempt to evade the force of
objections against this bill by saying that it is not the
religious, but the civil, observance of the day that is
required ; because it is plainly declared in the bill
itself, that it is not only to secure rest to all the people,
but that it is also to secure the religious observance of
the Sabbath day. There is not a single reference in
the bill to any such thing as the civil observance of
the day. The word civil is not used in the bill. It is
a religious bill wholly. The title of the Bill declares
that its object is to secure to the people the enjoyment
of the Lord's day as a day of rest, " and to promote its
observance as a day of religious worship." The first
section defines the Lord's day ; the second section
refers to the day as one of worship and rest ; the
third section refers to it as a day of religious wor-
ship ; the fourth section refers to its observance as
that of religious worship ; and the sixth section plainly
declares, what is apparent throughout, that the object
of the bill is "to secure to the whole people rest, . . .
and the religious observance of the Sabbath day," on
the first day of the week.
It is the religious observance of the day that its pro-
moters, from one end of the land to the other, have in
view. In the convention, now in session in this city,
46 THE NATIONAL SIJNbAY LAW.
working in behalf of this bill, only yesterday Dr. Crafts

said:—
"Taking religion out of the day, takes the rest out."
In the " Boston Monday Lectures," 1887, Joseph
Cook, lecturing on the subject of Sunday laws, said : —
" The experience of centuries shows, however, that
you will in vain endeavor to preserve Sunday as a day
of rest, unless you preserve it as a day of worship.
Unless Sabbath observance be founded upon religious
reasons, you will not long maintain it at a high standard
on the basis of economic and physiological and political
considerations only."
And in the Illinois State Sunday convention held in
Elgin, Nov. 8. 1887, Dr. W. W. Everts declared Sunday
to be " the test of all religion."
Sunday is a religious institution wholly ; Sunday leg-
islation, wherever found, is religious legislation solely ;
and this bill does not in its terms pretend to be any-
thing else than religious. Being therefore as it is, re-
ligious legislation, it is clearly unconstitutional. In
proof of this, I submit the following considerations : —
All the powers of Congress are delegated powers. It
has no other power ; it cannot exercise any other. Ar-
ticle X. of Amendments to the Constitution expressly
declares that —
" The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In all the powers thus delegated to Congress, there is
no hint of any power to legislate upon any religious
question, or in regard to the observance of any religious
institution or rite. Therefore, this Sunday bill, being a
religious bill, is unconstitutional ; and any legislation
with regard to it will be unconstitutional. Sunday be-
SUNDAY LA \VS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
ing a religious institution, any legislation by Congress

in regard to its observance, will be unconstitutional as
long as the United States Constitution shall remain as
it now is.
Nor is this all. The nation has not been left in doubt
as to whether the failure to delegate this power was or
was not intentional. The first amendment to the Con-
stitution, in declaring that " Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit-
ing the free exercise thereof," shows that the failure to
delegate such power was intentional, and makes the in-
tention emphatic by absolutely prohibiting Congress
from exercising any power with regard to religion. It
is impossible to frame a law on the subject of religion
that will not prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Therefore the first amendment to the Constitution ab-
solutely prohibits Congress from ever making any law
with regard to any religious subject, or the observance
of any religious rite or institution.
More than this, the National Reform Association
knows, and has been contending for twenty-five years,
that for Congress to make any Sunday laws would be
unconstitutional. Yet the National Reform Association
is one of the most prominent agencies in urging forward
this bill ; and the Secretary of that Association stood at
this table to-day to plead for its passage. And this only
shows that they are willing knowingly to resort to un-
constitutional means to secure their coveted power, and
to accomplish their purposes. As for Dr. Crafts and his
fellow-workers, whether or not they know it to be un-
constitutional, we do not know. In the announcements
of the national Sunday-law convention now (Dec. 11-
13, 1888) being held in this city, it was stated that
the church in which the convention was to meet-would
48 'rtiE NATIONAL StiNbAY LAW.
be festooned with the names of six millions of petition-

ers ; but at the beginning of the first meeting it was
stated that there were fourteen millions of them. A
qUestion was sent up asking how the number could have
grown so much larger so suddenly. Mrs. Bateham was
recalled to the platform to answer the question, and
when she answered it, the cause of such a sudden and
enormous growth was explained by the fact that Car-
dinal Gibbons had written a letter indorsing the bill,
and solely upon the strength of his name, seven million
two hundred thousand Catholics were counted as peti-
tioners.
This was not a complete answer to the question, be-
cause the Cardinal's letter does not authorize any such
use of it as they have made, at least so much of it as
was made public does not. The whole of the letter was
not made public there, because, Dr. Crafts said, it was
for the Senate Committee. It was laid on the table
here to-day. But so much of it as was read merely re-
ferred to the action of the Baltimore Council in com-
manding a stricter observance of Sunday, and said : —
" I am most happy to add my name to those of the
millions of others who are laudably contending against
the violation of the Christian Sabbath by unnecessary
labor, and who are endeavoring to promote its decent
and proper observance by judicious legislation."
This was all. He said, " I am happy to add my
name," etc. He did not say that he added, or that he
wished to add, seven million two hundred thousand
others with his name, or in his name ; yet this was done.
But it was not so much to be wondered at, because
the same principle had been acted upon before through-
out the country, and when five hundred petitioners
could be made out of one hundred, and two hundred
SUNDAY - LAW PE'TI'TIONS. 49
and forty thousand out of two hundred and forty, it was

perfectly easy and entirely consistent to make seven
million two hundred thousand and one out of one.
This thing was perfectly consistent also with the
principle in another point. The petition reads : " We,
the undersigned, adult residents of the United States,
twenty-one years of age or more, hereby petition," etc.
In counting these seven million two hundred thousand
petitioners in behalf of the Sunday law, they thereby
certified that all these were Catholics "twenty-one
years of age or more." But there was not a man in that
convention, and there is not a woman in the Woman's
Christian Temperance Union, who does not know that
there are not that many Catholics in the United States
"twenty-one years of age or more." They virtually
certified that all the Catholics in the United States
are "twenty-one years of age or more," for they dis-
tinctly announced that "all the Roman Catholics " were
petitioning for the Sunday law. But as they had
virtually certified the same thing of the Protestant
churches throughout the country, why should they not
go on and swing in " all the Roman Catholics " in the
same way ? They could do the one just as honestly as
they could do the other. When men and women pro-
fessing themselves to be Protestant Christians will do
such things as that to carry the Catholic Church with
them, it is not to be wondered at if they should be will-
ing to resort to unconstitutional means to make their
religious zeal effective in national law.
Senator Blair. — Then you assume that this bill and
all Sunday laws concern only the relation of man to
God, and not the relation of men to each other ?
Mr. ,ones. — Yes, sir, that is the principle upon
which we stand.
Senator Blair. — Right there I find fault with your

original proposition. You have got to establish, before
you can defeat the ground of Sunday laws, that Sunday
laws are not for the good of Cxsar ; that is, not for the
good of society.
Mr. yones.— I have not had time to prove that yet.
I will prove fully that Sunday laws are not for the good
of anybody.
Senator Blair. — Come to the point as soon as you
can. That is the point in this case, as between you and
the law proposed to be enacted.
.11(rYones.— Very good. For the State to compel
men to do no work is to enforce idleness. Idleness is
the root of unlimited evil. It is a true proverb that we
learned in our boyhood, " Satan always finds something
for idle hands to do." In this world, to compel men to
be idle is to force them into a line of influences and
temptations which in the very nature of things can end
only in evil. It is well known, and it is one of the prin-
cipal grounds of the complaints of those who are work-
ing for Sunday laws, that Sunday is, of all the week,
the day of the most wickedness ; that the record of
crime and violence on Sunday exceeds that of any other
day of the week, especially in large cities.
Dr. Crafts refers constantly to London as an exem-
plary city in the matter of enforced Sunday laws, but
the fact was brought out last spring by a member of
this Committee — Senator Payne — that the statement
had lately been "made on authority, that London on
Sunday is the most immoral and dissipated city in the
world." Now why is this ? They argue that it is be-
cause the saloons are open on Sunday. But the sa-
loons are open every other day of the week. Then the
saloons being open no more on Sunday than on any
SUNDAY LAWS NOT GOOD, 51
other day, why is it that there is so much more violence

done on Sunday than on other days of the week ? — It
is because more men are idle on Sunday than on any
other day of the week. Upon this point I quote an
extract from the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette of
March 10, 1888.
" They declare Sunday the moral ruin of the people.
They prove it by alleged statistics of criminal prosecu-
tions to show that more crimes of violence are com-
mitted on Sunday than on all other days of the week.
Why is this ? Because the saloons are open ?— They
are open on other days. This reduces them to the sole
reason that it is because it is a day of idleness.
"Their argument is absolutely destructive to the
'beneficence of the custom of a rest day. They con-
tinually affirm that a Sabbath day is the very foun-
dation of religion, morals, and society, and they as
incessantly declare that the custom of Sunday cessa-
tion from work in the cities had made it a day of moral
ruin. What is their recourse from the destruction which
they charge upon the day of idleness ?— To make stat-
utes more stringent to enforce idleness. Arguing that
idleness on that day leads mankind to moral ruin, they
call for a more rigid enforcement of idleness, to lead
mankind to the ways of salvation.
"Surely there is need to revise their basis in season
before they can proceed rationally in legislation. Sell-
ing beer is no more a sin on Sunday than on other
days. The reason why more crimes of violence are
done on Sunday than on other days — if that is a fact
— is not that the saloons are open, but that the men
are idle. The good of a day of rest for the toilers has
to be taken with the drawback of this unavoidable evil-
from idleness and indulgences of appetites. The cause
is the cessation of vocations."
This argument is entirely sound. We submit to the
consideration of any candid mind that it would be far
better to allow men to follow their honest occupations
on Sunday as they do on other days of the week, than

to compel them to be idle, and thus forcibly throw them
into the way of all the temptations and evil that beset
men in this world. No State, therefore, can ever afford
for its own good to enact laws making idleness com-
pulsory, as Sunday laws do.
More than this, to prohibit men from following their
honest occupations at any time, under penalties of fine
or imprisonment, or perhaps both, is for the State
to relegate honest occupations to the realm of crime,
and put a premium upon idleness and recklessness.
It is well known that in many localities if a man
will only be idle on Sunday, he can run into all sorts,
of dissipation and wickedness to any extent, except
that of down-right violence, without any fear of pros-
ecution or penalty of any kind. But if any quiet,
industrious citizen chooses to engage in his honest
occupation, — going quietly about his own business on
his own. premises on Sunday, -- he is subjected to
prosecution, to a penalty of a heavy fine, and perhaps
imprisonment. This is nothing else than to put a
premium upon wickedness. No State can afford to
make crimes of honest occupations. No State can
afford to put such a premium upon idleness and all its
attendant wickedness.
All these complaints of evil and violence and wick-
edness on Sunday, so enlarged upon by the people who
are. working for Sunday laws, is an open confession that
wickedness is the effect of enforced idleness, and this in
itself is the strongest argument that can be offered
against the very things for which they plead. The
States of the Union have all these years been sowing
the wind in this very thing, and now they are reaping
the whirlwind. And, worse than all, they propose to
RELIGION NECESSARY TO A REST-DAY. 53
cure the evils of all this enforced idleness by more

stringently enforcing more idleness throughout the
whole nation,' and by the national power.
It may be answered that this reflects upon the wis-
dom of God in appointing a day of rest ; but it does
not. God appointed the Sabbath for a purpose; and
that purpose is that men should remember him in his
works of creation,.and worship him as Creator.
The intention of the commandment enjoining the
observance of the Sabbath day, is the honor of God,
and his worship as Creator. This worship and the re-
ligious sanctions which God has associated with the
Sabbath, are considerations which will ever prevent
the day from becoming a day of idleness to those who
keep the Sabbath in obedience to him ; and the wor-
ship of God and the religious sanctions which he has
put upon the Sabbath, are the only things that ever
can prevent the Sabbath from becoming a day of idle-
ness. Those who advocate this Sunday bill well know
this. This whole principle is embodied in that state-
ment Dr. Crafts made to the Knights of Labor, that
" if you take religion out of the day, you take the rest
out." The same principle is also apparent in the words
of Joseph Cook, before referred to, that you will in vain
endeavor to secure the enforcement of a day of rest
unless you enforce it as a day of worship; and unless
it be founded on religious reasons, it cannot be long
maintained.
Thus these men themselves confess the point which
I here make : that it is only the religious sanctions
and worship that can ever keep a day of rest from
being a day of idleness, and of consequent wickedness.
But it is only God who can furnish those sanctions ;
the State never can. Therefore, the next step in the.
proceeding on the part of those who are calling- for this

law is to have the State attempt to supply the religious
sanctions which belong with the day of rest, and which
only can keep it from being a day of idleness and a
day of evil. But they know that the State has none of
those religious sanctions ; and they know that these
will have to be supplied to the State by the church,
and then the church will call upon the State, by its
power, to force them upon the citizen.
This is precisely what is proposed. Rev. Sam
Small, in a sermon in Kansas City last winter, ex-
pressed the views of many more than himself, when he
said : —
"I want to see the day come when the church shall be
the arbiter of all legislation, State, national, and munic-
ipal ; when the great churches of the country can come
together harmoniously, and issue their edict, and the
legislative powers will respect it, and enact it into
laws."
But any attempt to enforce religious observances
only enforces hypocrisy and multiplies sin, because
love for God is essential to every act of religious duty.
For a man to tender obedience or homage to God when
he has no love for God in his heart, only dishonors God,
and does violence to his own nature. For anybody to
obey God, or perform religious observances from inter-
ested motives, is sin ; and for the State to exert its
power in compelling men to act religiously, and pre-
tend to honor God when they have in the heart no love
for God, is only to force them into hypocrisy, and to
compel them to commit sin, which, increased and mul-
tiplied by the exertion of national power, can end only
in ruin, and that speedily.
For as Mr. Buckle has most forcibly expressed it ; —
A REST-DAY BELONGS ONLY TO GOD. 55
" In this way, men being constrained to mask their

thoughts, there arises a habit of securing safety by
falsehood, and of purchasing impunity with deceit. In
this way, fraud becomes a necessity of life ; insincerity
is made a daily custom ; the whole tone of public feel-
ing is vitiated ; and the gross amount of vice and of
error fearfully increased."
Consequently, it is only at its own peril that the
State can ever enforce the observance of a day of rest.
More than this, for the State to allow itself to be
dictated to by the church as is here proposed by Mr.
Small, is to render the church superior to the civil
power, which can end in nothing but a religious des-
potism, which is the worst of all despotisms. Thus by
every line of reasoning that can spring from the subject,
it is demonstrated that for the State to fix a day of
compulsory rest can only end in evil. Therefore, my
proposition is proved, that Sunday laws are not for the
good of anybody.
Further : as it is only the religious sanctions which
surround a day of rest, that can prevent it from being a
day of idleness, and consequently of evil ; and as God
only can supply these sanctions, it follows that to God
only, can Sabbath observance be rendered. He only can
command it ; he only can secure it ; and being a duty
which can be rendered only to God, we are brought again
directly to the command of Jesus Christ, to render unto
God, not to Caesar, that which is God's, which clearly
forbids the State to have anything to do with Sabbath
observance.
This whole line of argument is fully sustained by the
Sabbath commandment itself. That commandment
says : "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work : but the
5eventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God : in it
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor
thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates :
for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the
sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day :
wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hal-
lowed it."
Here are the reasons : first, he rested on the seventh
day ; second, he blessed it and made it holy. That you
may become tired is not given as a reason for doing no
work on the seventh day. God does not say that on the
seventh day you shall do no work, because if you should,
you would overdo or break down' your physical system.
Nothing of the kind. Man's physical wants are not re-
ferred to in the commandment. It says, Work six days,
because the Lord worked six days ; rest on the seventh
day, because the Lord rested on the seventh day ; keep
that day holy, because the. Lord blessed it and made it
holy. It is the Lord who is to be held in view. It is
the Lord who is to be exalted. Therefore the fourth
commandment and its obligations have solely to do with
man's relationship to God. It is not man's physical, but
his spiritual, needs that are held in view in the Sabbath
commandment. It is intended to be a day in which to
worship God, —a day of holy remembrance of him, and
of meditation upon his works. The day is to be kept holy.
If it is not kept holy, it is not kept at all. When the
State undertakes to demand the observance of the Sab-
bath, or Lord's day, it demands of men that which does
not belong to it, but which belongs only to God. When
the State undertakes to secure the observance of the
Sabbath, it iundertakes that which, to it, is an impossi-
ble task, because holiness is not an attribute of civil
government, nor has it either the power or the creden-
THE HISTORY OF IT. 57
tials to promote holiness ; and as has been already dem-

onstrated, all that it ever can do in any such effort is
to enforce idleness and put a premium upon reckless-
ness, which, for its own welfare, the State can never
afford to do. If the State undertakes to supply, from
whatever source, the religious sanctions which alone
can keep the day from being one of idleness, generat-
ing evil, it only enforces hypocrisy, and increases sin.
Therefore I repeat, that by every logical considera-
tion of the subject, I have sustained my proposition that
Sunday laws are not for the good of anybody or any-
thing in this world.
Senator Blair. —Do you understand that this bill
undertakes to make anybody worship God ?
Mr. yones.— Yes, sir, I affirm that it does ; and I will
prove it by statements made by those who stood here
to-day. But I have some other points to make first ;
and here I propose to introduce my historical argu-
ment. I want you all to see that in this way the
papacy was made in the fourth century. I shall read
all that I do read, perhaps, on this point, from Neander's
Church History, vol. 2, Prof. Torrey's edition, Boston,
• 1852. I can only refer to it by the page. As I have
related, the Roman empire was forced by the principles
of Christ, to recognize the right of every man to wor-
ship as he chose. This right was recognized in the
Edict of Milan, A. D. 312. But liberty of conscience
trembled in the balance but a moment, and then the
bishopric, with that ambitious spirit that developed the
papacy, took up the strain, and carried forward that
line of work which ended in the imperious despotism
of the Middle Ages. I want you to see just how that
was done, and you will then have no difficulty in seeing
the tendency of the present movement,
Neander says : —
" There had in fact arisen in the church a false theo-
cratical theory, originating not in the essence of the
gospel, but in the confusion of the religious constitu-
tions of the Old and New Testaments, which . . .
brought along with it an unchristian opposition of the
spiritual to the secular power, and which might easily
result in the formation of a sacerdotal State, subor-
dinating the secular to itself in a false and outward
way."—p. 132.
A theocratical theory of government tending to
subordinate the secular to itself, was the scheme. In
other words, the church aimed to make the ecclesias-
tical power superior to the civil power. These theo-
cratical bishops made themselves and their power a
necessity to Constantine, who, in order to make sure
of their support, became a political convert to the form
of Christianity, and made it the recognized religion of
the empire ; for says Neander further : —
" This theocratical theory was already the prevailitig
one in the time of Constantine ; and . . . the bishops
voluntarily made themselves dependent on him by
their disputes, and by their determination to make use
of the power of the State for the furtherance of their
aims." — Idem.
Out of that theocratical theory of government came
the papacy, which did subordinate the civil to the
ecclesiastical power, and that same spirit is to be
guarded against to-day in the United States as much
as in any other country.
I want you to see that there is a theocratical
theory underlying this whole scheme. Mrs. Bateham
has said that the Woman's Christian Temperance
Union started this movement a short time ago, and
that they had worked it up. What is their airrt in civil
A NEW THEOCRACY.. 59
government ? I quote from the monthly reading of the

Woman's Christian Temperance Union of September,
1886,—a monthly reading for all the local Unions
throughout the country — the following :—
" A true theocracy is yet to come, and the enthrone-
ment of Christ in law and law-makers ; hence I pray
devoutly, as a Christian patriot, for the ballot in the
hands of women, and rejoice that the National Woman's
Christian Temperance Union has so long championed
this cause."
A theocratical theory, you see, is behind this move-
ment, and is again coming in to interefere in civil
things, to establish a theocracy, and to subordinate
the civil power at last, to the ecclesiastical.
Senator Blair. — Do you think that the question of
giving the ballot to women is a religious question ?
Mr. Jones.— No. I only read this for the purpose
of giving the proof that there is a theocratical theory
underlying this, as there was that in the fourth century,
so as to show the parallel.
Senator Blair. — But the parallel seems to imply
that the extension of the suffrage to woman is by di-
vine appointment, and is the introduction of a theo-
cratic form of government ?
Mr. Jones. — Yes, they want the ballot so as to
make a theocracy successful.
Senator Blair.—Therefore you would be against
woman's suffrage ?
Mr. Jones. —I would be against woman's suffrage,
or any other kind of suffrage, to establish a theocracy.
Senator Blair. — But that is not the question. It is
possible these women have misstated their own idea
there.
Mr. Jones. — No, because I have other proofs. Let
me read them.
Senator Palmer.— Do you suppose they intended

there a practical theocracy ?
Mr.,ones. —I do, sir ; but let me read further, and
you will get their own words.
Senator Blair. — If these women are trying to over-
throw the institutions of the country, and are about to
establish a sacerdotal State, we ought to know it.
Mr. zones. — That is true, and that is why I am
speaking here ; we want the nation to know it.
Senator Blair. —These women need looking after, I
admit.
Mr. zones. — They do in that respect, and there are
many men concerned in the same business.
Senator Blair. —Otherwise it would not be dan-
gerous.
Mr. Zones. — It would be dangerous anyway. A
theocratical theory of government is dangerous any-
where. It is antichristian, as well as contrary to right
and the principles of justice.
Senator Blair. — Do you suppose that the govern-
ment of heaven is a theocracy ?,
Mr. zones.—Yes, sir; but a civil government — a
government of earth— is not.
Senator Blair. — Then why is it dangerous ?
Mr. zones. — Governments of earth are not danger-
ous when properly controlled.
Senator Blair.— They only say that a true theocracy
is yet to come. A millennium is supposed to be com-
ing ; perhaps they have reference to a millennium that
we have not yet got, so that they will wait some years
before they get it.
Mr. Jones. —But I am going to read what kind of
laws they propose to make to bring in the millennium.
Senator Blair. — So far as you have read, you have
not touched the question ; for they say a true theocracy
THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL. 61
is yet to come, and it may be they are looking to the

coming down of the New Jerusalem, for the time of the
new theocracy.
Mr. yones.— No, because no true theocracy can
ever come through civil laws, or through politics, or
through the ballot.
Senator Blair. — That is not sure at all.
Mr. yones.—It is by the Scriptures.
Senator Blair. — I do not know ; I have read the
Bible several times. But go on.
Mr. yones.— The government of Israel was a true
theocracy. That was really a government of God. At
the burning bush, God commissioned Moses to lead his
people out of Egypt. By signs and wonders and mighty
miracles multiplied, God delivered Israel from Egypt,
and led them through the wilderness, and finally into
the promised land. There he ruled them by judges
" until Samuel the prophet," to whom, when he was a
child, God spoke, and by whom he made known his will.
In the days of Samuel, the people asked that they might
have a king. This was allowed, and God chose Saul,
and Samuel anointed him king of Israel. Saul failed
to do the will of God, and as he rejected the word of
the Lord, the Lord rejected him from being king, and
sent Samuel to anoint David king of Israel ; and David's
throne God established forevermore. When Solomon
succeeded to the kingdom in the place of David his
father, the record is : " Then Solomon sat on the throne
of the Lord as king instead of David his father." 1
Chron. 29 : 23. David's throne was the throne of the
Lord, and Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as
king over the earthly kingdom of God. The succession
to the throne descended in David's line to Zedekiah,
who was made subject to the king of Babylon, and who
entered into a solemn covenant before God that he
62 /lit NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW,
would loyally render allegiance to the king of Baby-

lon. But Zedekiah broke his covenant ; and then God
said to him : —
"Thou profane, wicked prince of Israel, whose day
is come, when iniquity shall have an end, thus saith
the Lord God ; Remove the diadem, and take off the
crown : this shall not be the same : exalt him that is
low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn,
overturn, overturn it, and it shall be no more, until he
come whose right it is ; and I will give it him." Eze.
21 : 25-27 ; see chap. 17 : 1-21.
The kingdom was then subject to Babylon. When

Babylon fell, and Medo-Persia succeeded, it was over-
turned the first time. When Medo-Persia fell, and was
succeeded by Grecia, it was overturned the second time.
When the Greek empire gave way to Rome, it was
overturned the third time. And then says the word,
" It shall be no more, until he come whose right it is ;
and I will give it him." Who is he whose right it is ?—
"Thou . . . shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be
great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest ; and
the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his
father David ; and he shall reign over the house of
Jacob forever ; and of his kingdom there shall be no
end." Luke 1 :31-33. And while he was here as "that
prophet," a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,
the night in which lie was betrayed he himself declared,
" My kingdom is not of this world." Thus the throne
of the Lord has been removed from this world, and
will "be no more, until he come whose right it is,"
and then it will be given him. And that time is the
end of this world, and the beginning of " the world to
come." Therefore while this world stands, a true the-
ocracy can never be in it again. Consequently, from
THE NEW THEocRAcv. 63
the death of Christ till the end of this world, every

theory of an earthly theocracy is a false theory ; every
pretension to it is a false pretension ; and wherever any
such theory is proposed or advocated, whether in Rome
in the fourth century, or here in the nineteenth cent-
ury, it bears in it all that the papacy is or that it ever
pretended to be, — it puts a man in the place of God.
Now I will read another, statement as to the purpose
of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. It is
from the annual address of the President of the Na-
tional Union, at the Nashville convention, 1887. It is
as follows :—
" The Woman's Christian Temperance Union, local,
State, national, and world-wide, has one vital, organic
thought, one all-absorbing purpose, one undying enthu-
siasm, and that is that Christ shall be this world's
king• —"
Senator Blair. —" Shall be."
Mr. Pones.—" Shall be this world's king."
Senator Blair. — But you are a clergyman, and you
read the Bible to us.
Mr. zones. — I am going to read a passage presently
right on this point.
Senator Blair. — Is it not in the same Bible that the
time when Christ is to be the king, is the present ?
Mr. hones. —I am going to read a passage from the
Bible in connection with this subject. Allow me to
finish this extract : —
"The Woman's Christian Temperance Union, local,
State, national, and world-wide, has one vital, organic
thought, one all-absorbing purpose, one undying en-
thusiasm, and that is that Christ shall be this world's
king; — yea, verily, THIS WORLD'S KING in its realm
of cause and effect,— king of its courts, its camps, its
64 THE IslATIONALNtAIr LAW.
commerce, king of its colleges and cloisters, — king

of its customs and constitutions. . . . The kingdom of
Christ must enter the realm of law through the gate-
way of politics."
That emphasizes "this world's king." Jesus Christ
himself said, " My kingdom is not of this world." Then
assuredly the Woman's Christian Temperance Union
stands against the words of Jesus Christ, in saying that
he shall be this world's king; and that that kingdom is
to enter the realm of the law through the gate-way of
politics. Jesus Christ has his entrance through the
gate-way of the gospel, and not through politics.
Nor did this purpose end with the Nashville National
Woman's Christian Temperance Union convention.
The proposition was repeated by the New York na-
tional convention last summer, in the following resolu-
tion : —
"Resolved, That Christ and his gospel, as universal
king and code, should be sovereign in our Government
and political affairs."
Well, let us apply the resolution. Suppose the gos-
pel were adopted as the code of this Government. It
is the duty of every court to act in accordance with the
code. There is a statute in that code which says, —
" If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him ;
and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against
thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn
again to thee, saying, I repent ; thou shalt forgive him."
Suppose, then, a man steals a horse. He is arrested,
tried, and found guilty. He says, "I repent." "Thou
shalt forgive him," says the code, and the Government
must conform to the code. He is released, and repeats
the act ; is again arrested and found guilty. He says,
" I repent." " Thou shalt forgive him," says the code.
CHE REVV rREOCRACV. 65
And if he repeats the offense seven times in a day, and

seven times in a day turns to the court, saying, " I re-
pent," the Government must forgive him, for so says
that which the Woman's Christian Temperance Union
has resolved should be the governmental code.
Any such system as that would destroy civil govern-
ment in twenty-four hours. This is not saying any-
thing against the Bible, nor against its principles. It is
only illustrating the absurd perversion of its principles
by these people who want to establish a system of re-
ligious legislation here. God's government is moral,
and he has made provision for maintaining his govern-
ment with the forgiveness of transgression. But he has
made no such provision for civil government. No such
provision can be made, and civil government be main-
tained. The Bible reveals God's method of saving those
who sin against his moral government ; civil govern-
ment is man's method of preserving order, and has
nothing to do with sin, nor the salvation of sinners. If
civil government arrests a thief or a murderer and finds
him guilty, the penalty must be executed, though the
Lord does forgive him.
The theocratical theory referred to seems to pervade
the whole body, for the eighth district of the Woman's
Christian Temperance Union, at Augusta, Wis., Oct.
2-4,1888, representing fifteen counties, passed this reso-
lution :—
" Whereas, God would have all men honor the Son,
even as they honor. the Father ; and,—
" Whereas, The civil law which Christ gave from
Sinai is the only perfect law, and the only law that will
secure the rights of all classes ; therefore, —
" Resolved, That civil government should recognize
Christ as the moral Governor, and his law as the stand-
ard of legislation."
The law which Christ gave from Sinai is not a civil

law ; it is the moral law. But if that be a civil law, and
this a civil government, what in the world does a civil
government want with a moral Governor ? These
excellent women should be informed that civil govern-
ment is based upon civil law, and has civil governors
only. Moral government is founded in moral law, and
has a moral Governor only. Any governmental theory
that confounds these is a theocratical theory, which is
precisely the governmental theory of the Woman's
Christian Temperance Union, as is demonstrated by
these proofs. And any theocratical theory of govern-
ment since Christ died, is the theory of the papacy.
These extracts prove that the purpose of the Woman's
Christian Temperance Union is the establishment of " a
practical theocracy." Please do not misunderstand me
here. There are none who have more respect or more
good wishes for the Woman's Christian Temperance
Union, in the line of its legitimate work, than have we.
We are heartily in favor of union, of temperance union,
of Christian temperance union, and of woman's Chris-
tian temperance union ; but we are not in favor of any
kind of political Christian temperance union, nor of
theocratical temperance union. We sincerely wish
that the Woman's Christian Temperance Union would
stick to its text, and work for Christian temperance
by Christian means ; and not for Christian temperance
by political means, nor for political temperance by
theocratical means. I believe in Christian temperance.
Not only do I believe in it, but I practice it. I practice
Christian temperance more strictly than the. Woman's
Christian Temperance Union even preaches it. But
believing in it as thoroughly as I do, and endeavoring
to practice it as strictly as I believe in it, I would never
THE FOURTH-CENTURY THEOCRACY. 67
lift my hand nor open my lips in any effort to compel

men to practice the Christian temperance in which I
believe and which I practice. Christianity persuades
men, instead of trying to compel them. By the purity
and love of Christ, Christianity draws men instead of try-
ing to drive them. It is not by the power of civil gov-
ernment, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, that
Christianity secures the obedience of men and the prac-
tice of Christian temperance.
The establishment of a theocracy is the aim of the
prime movers in this Sunday-law movement, as it was
also the aim of the church leaders of the fourth century.
And what came of that movement at that time ? I
read again : —
"This theocratical theory was already the prevailing
one in the time of Constantine ; and . . . the bishops
voluntarily made themselves dependent on him by their
disputes, and by their determination to make use of the
power of the State for the furtherance of their aims." —
Neander, p. .r32.
This being their theory, which resulted in the deter-
mination " to make use of the power of the State for
the furtherance of their aims," the question arises, What
means did they employ to secure control of this power ?
The answer is, They did it by means of Sunday laws.
The first and greatest aim of the political church
managers of that time was the exaltation of them-
selves ; and second only to that was the exaltation of
Sunday. These two things had been the principal aim
of the bishops of Rome for more than a hundred years,
when Constantine gave them a chance to make their
schemes effectual by the power of the State. The ar-
rogant pretensions of the bishop of Rome to secure
power over the whole church, was first asserted in be-
half of Sunday by Victor, who was bishop of Rome

from A. D. 193 to 202.
" He wrote an imperious letter to the Asiatic pre-
lates commanding them to imitate the example of the
Western Christians with respect to the time of celebrat-
ing the festival of Easter [that is, commanding them
to celebrate it on Sunday]. The Asiatics answered this
lordly requisition . . . with great spirit and resolution,
that they would by no means depart in this manner
from the custom handed down to them by their ances-
tors. Upon this the thunder of excommunication began
to roar. Vicfor, exasperated by this resolute answer
of the Asiatic bishops, broke communion with them,
pronounced them unworthy of the name of his breth-
ren, and excluded them from all fellowship with the
church of Rome."— Mosheim, chap. .4, par. 11.
The one means by which these church managers
secured from Constantine the use of the power of the
State, was the famous edict prohibiting certain kinds of
work on "the venerable day of the sun." That edict
runs thus : —
" Let all the judges and towns-people and the
occupation of all trades rest on the venerable day of
the sun ; but let those who are situated in the country,
freely and at full liberty attend to the business of agri-
culture, because it often happens that no other day is
so fit for sowing corn and planting vines, lest the critical
moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities
granted by Heaven."
This edict was issued March 7, A. D. 321. Only
judges and towns-people and mechanics were to rest
on Sunday ; people in the country were at full liberty
to work. But this did not satisfy the political man-
agers of the churches for any great length of time.
" The object of the first Sunday law," says Sozomen,
"was that the day might be devoted with less interrup-
FOURTH-CENTURY SUNDAY LAWS. 69
tion to the purposes of devotion." And as the govern-

ment was now a theocracy, it was only consistent that
all should be required to be religious. Consequently,
an additional Sunday law was secured, which com-
manded all people to do no work on Sunday.
" By a law of the year 386, those older changes
effected by the Emperor Constantine were more rigor-
ously enforced, and, in general, civil transactions of
every kind on Sunday were strictly forbidden. Who-
ever transgressed was to be considered in fact as guilty
of sacrilege." — Neander, p. 300.
Then as the people were not allowed to do any man-
ner of work, they would play, and as the natural conse-
quence, the circuses and the theaters throughout the
empire were crowded every Sunday. But the object of
the law, from the first one that was issued, was that the
day might be used for the purposes of devotion, and
that the people might go to church. Consequently,
that this object might be met, there was another step
to take, and it was taken. At a church convention
held at Carthage in 401, the bishops passed a resolution
to send up a petition to the emperor, praying —
" That the public shows might be transferred from
the Christian Sunday, and from feast-days, to some
other. days of the week." — Idem.
History does not say whether or not this petition
represented the names of fourteen million petitioners,
the greater part of whom never signed it at all. His-
tory is also silent as to whether the petition was in-
dorsed by any one man who could be counted for seven
million two hundred thousand men. But history is
not silent as to the reason why it was necessary to send
up the petition. The petitioners themselves gave the
reason, and it was this : —
"The people congregate more to the circus than to

the church."—Idem, note 5.
In the circuses and the theaters large numbers of
men were employed, among whom many were church-
members. But rather than to give up their jobs, they
would work on Sunday. The bishops complained that
these were compelled to work : they pronounced it
persecution, and asked for a law to protect those per-
sons from such "persecution." The church had become
filled with a mass of people, unconverted, who cared
vastly more for worldly interests and pleasures than
they did for religion. And as the government was now
a government of God, it was considered proper that the
civil power should be used to cause all to show respect
for God, whether or not they belonged to a church, or
whether they had any respect for God.
The people, not being allowed to work, crowded the
circus and the theater. They had no wish to be de-
voted ; and as they were forced to be idle, a flood of
dissipation was the inevitable consequence. Neander
says of it : —
" Owing to the prevailing passion at that time, espe-
cially in the large cities, to run after the various public
shows, it so happened that when these spectacles fell on
the same days which had been consecrated by the church
to some religious festival, they proved a great hinderance
to the devotion of Christians, though chiefly, it must be
allowed, to those whose Christianity was the least an
affair of the life and of the heart." — Idem.
And further :
" Church teachers . . . were in truth often forced to
complain that in such competitions the theater was
vastly more frequented than the church."— Idem.
And the church could not then stand competition ;
she wanted a monopoly. She got it, at last.
THE UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 71
This petition of the Carthage Convention could not

be granted at once, but in the year 425, the desired law
was secured ; and to this also there was attached the
reason that was given for the first Sunday law that ever
was made ; namely, —
" In order that the devotion of the faithful might be
free from all disturbance." — Idem, p. 301.
It must constantly be borne in mind, however, that
the only way in which " the devotion of the faithful"
was " disturbed " by these things, was that when the
circus or the theater was open at the same time that
the church was open, the " faithful " would go to the
circus or the theater instead of to church, and therefore
their "devotion" was "disturbed." And of course the
only way in which the " devotion " of such "faithful"
ones could be freed from all disturbance, was to close
the circuses, and the theaters at church time. Thus,
and by this means, every reason for not being devoted
was taken away from all the people. Then in the very
next sentence Neander says :
" In this way the church received help from the State
for the furtherance of her ends."
This statement is correct. Constantine did many
things to favor the bishops. He gave them money and
political preference. He made their decisions in dis-
puted cases as final as the decision of Jesus Christ. But
in nothing that he did for them did he give them power
over those who did not belong to the church, to compel
them to act as though they did, except in that one thing
of the Sunday law. Their decisions, which he decreed
to be final, were binding only on those who voluntarily
chose that tribunal, and affected none others. Before
this time, if any who had repaired to the tribunal of the
bishops were dissatisfied with the decision, they could

appeal to the civil magistrate. This edict cut off that
source of appeal, yet affected none but those who vol-
untarily chose the arbitration of the bishops. But in
the Sunday law, power was given to the church to com-
pel those who did not belong to the church, and who
were not subject to the jurisdiction of the church, to
obey the commands of the church. In the Sunday law
there was given to the church control of the civil power,
that by it she could compel those who did not belong
to the church to act as if they did. The history of Con-
stantine's time may be searched through and through,
and it will be found that in nothing did he give to the
church any such power, except in this one thing— the
Sunday law. Neander's statement is literally correct,
that it was " in this way the church received help from
the State for the furtherance of her ends."
The work, however, was not done yet. True, the
bishops had secured the power of the State to take
away from the people all excuse for not being religious ;
but from the beginning of the whole scheme, the people
had no real wish to be religious. They had none of the
spirit of devotion in their hearts ; and although the
State had forbidden them to work, and had shut the
Sunday circuses and theaters, still the people would not
be religious. The next step to be taken, therefore, in
the logic of the situation, was to compel them ; and the
theocratical bishops were equal to the occasion. They
were ready with a theory that exactly met the de-
mands of the case ; and the great Catholic Church
Father and Catholic saint, Augustine, wasthe father
of this Catholic saintly theory. He wrote : —
" It is indeed better that men should be brought to
serve God by instruction than by fear of punishment, or
THE FOUNDATION OF THE INQUISITION. 73
by pain. But because the former means are better, the

latter must not therefore be neglected. . . . Many must
often be brought back to their Lord, like wicked serv-
ants, by the rod of temporal suffering, before they attain
to the highest grade of religious development."—Schaff's
Church History, vol. 2,.sec. 27.
Of this theory Neander remarks : —
" It was- by Augustine, then, that a theory was pro-
posed and founded, which . . . contained the germ of
that whole system of spiritual despotism, of intolerance
and persecution, which ended in the tribunals of the In-
quisition." -- Church History, p. 217.
The history of the Inquisition is only the history of
the carrying out of this infamous theory of Augustine's.
But this theory is only the logical sequence of the the-
ory upon which the whole series of Sunday laws was
founded. The church induced the State to compel all
to be idle for their own good. Then it was found that
they all were more inclined to wickedness. Then to
save them from all going to the Devil, they tried to
compel all to go to heaven. The work of the Inqui-
sition was always for love of men's souls, and to save
them from hell !
Allow me to summarize these statements from Ne-
ander : He says of the carrying into effect of the theo-
cratical theory of those bishops, that they made them-
selves dependent upon Constantine by their disputes,
and " by their determination to use the power of the
State for the furtherance of their aims." Then he men-
tions the first and second Sunday laws of Constantine ;
the Sunday law of 386 ; the Carthage Convention, reso-
lution, and petition of 401 ; and the law of 425 in re-
sponse to this petition ; and then, without a beak, and
with direct reference to these Sunday laws, he says :
"In this way the church received help from the State for
the furtherance of her ends." She started out with the

determination to do it ; she did it ; and "in this way"
she did it. And when she had secured the control of
the power of the State, she used it for the furtherance
of her own aims, and in her own despotic way, as
announced in Augustine's Inquisitorial theory. The
first step logically and inevitably led to the last ; and
the theocratical leaders in the movement had the cruel
courage to follow the first step unto the last, as framed
in the words of Augustine, and illustrated in the history
of the Inquisition.
That is the system with which Sunday laws belong.
That is the theory upon which they are based. They
have no other foundation. Mr. Elliott, who has spoken
here in behalf of this bill, knows that there is no law
in the Bible for keeping the first day of the week. I
could read a passage from his own book, "The Abiding
Sabbath," page 184, in which he confesses "the complete
silence of the New Testament, so far as any explicit
command for the Sabbath, or definite rules for its
observance, are concerned." And everybody knows
that the Old Testament does not say anything about
the observance of the first day of the week as Sabbath.
Everybody likewise knows that the Old Testament does
not say anything about keeping the first day of the
week as the day of the resurrection of the Saviour, or
for any other reason. Dr. Johnson and others here this
morning have said that the first day of the week was
chosen because it was a memorial of the resurrection of
the Saviour. It is the New Testament that tells about
the resurrection of the Saviour. That is granted. Dr.
Elliott confesses, and the American Tract Society pub-
lishes it, that there is " complete silence of the New
Testament" in regard to it. Then what right have they
NO SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY FOR SUNDAY. 75
to put it into a law, and try to compel by civil law all

people to keep as the Lord's day that for which there is
no scriptural authority ? Let me read another passage
from another book, printed by the American Sunday-
school Union. On page 186 of " The Lord's Day,"
written by Mr. A. E. Waffle, are these words:—
" Up to the time of Christ's death, no change had
been made in the day. The authority must be sought
in the words or in the example of the inspired apostles."
Then on the very next page he says : —
" So far as the record shows, they [the apostles] did
not, however, give any explicit command enjoining the
abandonment of the seventh-day Sabbath, and its ob-
servance on the first day of the week."
Dr. Schaff, in the Schaff Herzog Cyclopedia, says : —
" No regulations for its observance are laid down in
the New Testament, nor, indeed, is its observance even
enjoined." — Article Sunday.
If, then, they confess that Christ gave no law for
its observance, why do they want to compel people to
observe it ? What right have they to compel anybody
to observe it ? I deny their right to compel me or any-
body else to do what Christ never commanded any man
to do.
Senator Blair. —You admit there was a Sabbath
before Christ came ?
Mr. zones. — Certainly.
Senator Blair. — And he said he came not to destroy,
but to fulfill ?
Mr. zones. — Certainly.
Senator Blair. — Is there anything in the New Tes-
tament which destroyed the Sabbath already existing ?
Mr. zones. — No, sir.
76 THE NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW. •
Senator Blair.— Then why does it not continue to

exist ? •
Mr. yones.— It does exist, and we keep the com-
mandment which provides for the Sabbath.
Senator Blair. — Then you say there is a Sabbath
recognized, and that is equivalent to its re-affirmation
by Christ ?
Mr. Jones. — Certainly.
Senator Blair. —I do not see from what you are
stating, but that Christ recognized an existing law,
and that it is continuing at the present time. You say
that it is one day, and they say that it is another.
Mr. Jones.—But they are after a law to enforce the
observance of the first day of the week as the Lord's
day, when they confess that the Lord never gave any
command in regard to it. The commandment which
God gave says that the " seventh day is the Sabbath."
Senator Blair. — Is it still the Sabbath ?
Mr. Jones. —Certainly, and we keep it ; but we
deny the right of any civil government to compel any
man either to keep it or not to keep it.
Senator Blair. —The civil government of the Jews
compelled its observance ?
Mr. Jones. — That was a theocracy.
Senator Blair. — Does it follow that when the only
form of government is a theocracy and that embraces
all that appertains to government, another form of gov-
ernment which is not a theocracy necessarily, cannot
embrace the same subject-matter as the theocracy ? If
the subject-matter of a theocratical, a monarchial, or a
republican form of government is not the same, to con-
trol the establishment of good order in society, pray
what is it ? We say, and it is our form of government,
that the people shall legislate, shall construe the law,
SABBATki LAWS 13ELONG ONLY WITH A THEOCRACY. 77
and execute the law. Under the old theocratic form,

God made the law, God construed it, and God executed
it through his instrumentalities ; but we do just the
same thing by the will of the people, that under the
theocratic form of government was done in the other
way. Now if the Sabbath is necessarily for the general
good of society, a republican form of government must
make and enforce the observance of the Sabbath just
as the theocracy did. You seem to be laboring, as it
strikes me, under the impression that a civil govern-
ment for the good of the people carried on by us under
the republican form, cannot do anything that the theo-
cratic form of government does when the theocratic is
the only form. They necessarily cover the same sub-
ject-matter, — the control, the development, the good,
and the health of society, it makes no difference which
one it may be.
111r. Zones. — A theocratic government is a govern-
ment of God.
Senator Blair. — So are the powets that be ordained
of God.
Mr. zones. — This Government is not a government
•of God.
Senator Blair. — Do you not consider the•Govern-
ment of the United States as existing in accordance
with the will of God ?
Mr. Zones. — Yes, but it is not a government of God.
The government of God is a moral government. This
is a civil government.
Senator Blair. — A theocracy is a civil government,
and governs in civil affairs, as well as in the region of
spirituality and morality and religion.
Mr. zones. — Certainly, and God governs it, and
nothing but a theocracy can enforce those things which
pertain to man's relation to God under the first four

commandments.
Senator Blair. — But this proposed legislation is out-
side of the theocratic part of it.
Mr. ,`ones. — Not at all ; for it proposes by penalties
to " promote " the religious observance of the Lord's
day, while nothing but the government of God can do
that. That is the point I am making here, that if you
allow this legislation, you lead to the establishment of
a new theocracy after the model of the papacy, and civil
government has nothing to do with religious things.
This bill is wholly religious ; and if you begin this
course of religious legislation, you will end only in a
theocracy, — a man-made theocracy, — and that will be
the papacy repeated.
Senator Blair. —We have had the Sunday laws in
this country for three hundred years. They have con-
stantly become more and more liberalized. Have you
ever known an instance, though the sentiment in favor
of the Sabbath seems to be growing constantly stronger,
where any State in this Union undertook to enact a law
that anybody should go to church, which is the danger
you seem to apprehend ?
Mr. Yones.— Not yet. They are now after the first
law. This will lead to that. The law of Constantine
was enacted in 321, and it commanded at first only that
towns-people and mechanics should do no work, that
they might be religious. They did not ask for too much
at first. As was said in a ministers' meeting in San
Diego, Cal., about two months ago, "In this thing you
must not ask for too much at first. Ask just what pub-
lic sentiment will bear, and when you get that, ask for
more." And as was said upon this bill by Dr. Crafts
in this Capitol, —
MORE! MORE! MORE! MORE! 79
" We will take a quarter of a loaf, half a loaf, or a

whole loaf. If the Government should do nothing more
than forbid the opening of the post-offices at church
hours, it would be a national tribute to the value of re-
ligion, and would lead to something more satisfactory."
Then in telling what would be more satisfactory, he
said:—
"The law allows the local postmaster, if he chooses
(and some of them do choose), to open the mails at the
very hour of church, and so make the post-office the
competitor of the churches."
At another point in the same speech, Mr. Crafts re-
ferred to the proposed law as one for " protecting the
church services from post-office competition." And in
explaining how this could be done, he said :—
" A law forbidding the opening between ten and
twelve, would accomplish this, and would be better
than nothing ; but we want more."
And,
A law forbidding any handling of Sunday mail at
such hours as would interfere with church attendance
on the part of the employees, would be better than
nothing ; but we want more than this."
He continues :—
" Local option in deciding whether a local post-office
shall be opened at all on Sunday, we should welcome as
better than nothing ; . . . but we desire more than this."
How much more ? Still he continues : —
" A law forbidding all carrier delivery of mail on Sun-
day, would be better than nothing ; but we want more
than that."
And when will they ever get enough ? It is precisely
as it was when the Emperor Constantine forbade the
judges, towns-people, and mechanics to work on Sun-

day. That was an imperial tribute to the " value of re-
ligion," and led to " something more satisfactory "— to
the church managers.
Senator Blair. — Have you ever heard of a proposi-
tion's being made in any legislative body to compel
any one to attend church on Sunday ?
Mr. Jones. — The propositions that are made are for
that very purpose, to stop the Sunday trains, the Sun-
day newspapers, — in short, to stop all work on Sunday,
so that the people can go to church.
Senator Blair. — But these people come here and
say that they have no such purpose, and they have been
doing these things in the States for a hundred years,
and during the Colonial period anterior to that time.
Have you ever heard on the American continent,
within the territory of what is now the United States,
a proposition or a suggestion in a legislative body to
compel anybody to attend church ?
Mr. Jones. — Not in a legislative body, but in eccle-
siastical bodies.
Senator Blair. — Ecclesiastical bodies do not make
the laws. Congress is not an ecclesiastical body.
Mr. Jones.—But it is an ecclesiastical body that is
seeking to secure and enforce this law, just as the
New England theocracy did when "absence from `the
ministry of the word' was punished by a fine ; " and
then when people were compelled under such penalty
to go to church and listen to the preaching, it was such
preaching as, said one of the victims, " was meat to
be digested, but only by the heart or stomacke of an
ostrich."
Nor was this confined to Colonial times or to New
England ; for after the Colonies became States, North
ENFORCED CHURCH-GOING ON SUNDAY. 81
Carolina had a Sunday law, — has yet, for aught I

know, — reading as follows : —
" Be it enacted . . . that all and .every person or
persons shall on the Lord's day, commonly called Sun-
day, carefully apply themselves to the duties of religion
and piety."
In 1803, Tennessee passed a law embodying the same
words. But South Carolina and Georgia went farther
than this ; South Carolina enacted that —
" All and every person whatsoever, shall, on every
Lord's day, apply themselves to the observation of the
same, by exercising themselves thereon in the duties
of piety and true religion, publicly and privately ; and
having no reasonable or lawful excuse, on every Lord's
day shall resort to their parish church, or some other
parish church, or some meeting or assembly of religious
worship."
In 1803, Georgia likewise enacted a Sunday law
whose first section required all persons to attend
public worship. In 1821, the State of Connecticut, in
revising its laws, made its Sunday law read in the first
section, that —
" It shall be the duty of the citizens of this State to
attend the public worship of God on the Lord's day."
This is precisely the line of things proposed by these
men and women now working for this Sunday law.
This is the first step in that direction. The whole ob-
ject which they have in view in -stopping work on
Sunday, is identical with that of the fourth century ;
namely, in order that the people may be devoted, in
order that they may go to church. The very intention
of these men in securing the law is religious.
I will refer you to some of the statements of the
very men who stood in this room this forenoon, arguing
6
for this Sunday bill. Dr. W. W. Everts, of Chicago, in

a Sunday-law convention in Illinois, Nov. 8, 1887, de-
clared Sunday to be the " test of all religion." Taking
his own words, what can the enforcement of it ever be
•but the enforcement of a religious test ? Dr. Crafts,
who is so prominent in this work, said to the Knights of
Labor at Indianapolis, as I have before quoted, and he
repeated it in this city last night, " If you take religion
out of the day, you take the rest out of it." This state-
ment was made in reply to a question as to whether a
day of rest could not be secured to the working-men
without reference to religion. Taking the statement
of Dr. Crafts, therefore, its being a day of rest to any-
body depends altogether upon whether religion is in it ;
for if you take religion out, you take the rest out. He,
with these others, demands a law compelling the people
to take the rest. Religion being in the rest, and the
rest wholly dependent upon the fact that religion is in
it, it is inevitable that their effort to secure a law com-
pelling everybody to rest on Sunday is an effort to
establish by law a religious observance.
Again : in the Boston Monday lectureship of 1887,
Joseph Cook said, —
"The experience of centuries shows that you will in
vain endeavor to preserve. Sunday as a day of rest, un-
less you preserve it as a day of worship."
Further : Dr. Everts said in the Elgin convention :—
"The laboring class are apt to rise late on Sunday
morning, read the Sunday papers, and allow the hour
of worship to go by unheeded."
And in Chicago only three weeks ago, Dr. Herrick
Johnson named the matter with which he said the Sun-
day papers are filled—crime, scandal, gossip, news, and
politics — and exclaimed :
THE OBJECT OF SUNDAY LAWS. 83
" What a melange! what a dish to set down before a

man before breakfast and after breakfast, to prepare him
for hearing the word of God! It makes it twice as hard
to reach those who go to the sanctuary, and it keeps
many away from the house of worship altogether."
Dr. Everts said further in the Elgin convention : —
" The Sunday train is another great evil. They can-
not afford to run a train unless they get a great many
passengers, and so break up a great many congregations.
The Sunday railroad trains are hurrying their passen-
gers fast on to perdition. What an outrage that the
railroad, that great civilizer, should destroy the Chris-
tian Sabbath !"
I will give one more statement which sums up the
whole matter. In a Sunday-law mass-meeting held in
Hamilton Hall, Oakland, Cal., in January, 1881, Rev.
Dr. Briggs, of Napa, Cal., said to the State : —
" You relegate moral instruction to the church, and
then let all go as they please on Sunday, so that we
cannot get at them."
Therefore they want the State to corral all the peo-
ple on Sunday, so that the preachers can get at them.
These statements might be multiplied indefinitely ;
but these are enough. The speeches, and the sermons,
and the work, of those who are in favor of the Sunday
laws, are all in the same line. They all plainly show
that the secret and real object of the whole Sunday-law
movement is to get the people to go to church. The
Sunday train must be stopped, because church mem-
bers ride on it, and do n't go to church enough. The
Sunday paper must be abolished, because the people
read it instead of going to church, and because those
who read it and go to church too, are not so well pre-
pared to receive the preaching.
It was precisely the same way in the fourth century

concerning the Sunday circus and theater. The people,
even the church members, would go to these instead of
to church ; and even if they went to both, it must be
confessed that the Roman circus or theater was not a
very excellent dish — " What a melange!" — to set
down before a man to prepare him for hearing the word
of God. The Sunday circus and theater could not afford
to keep open unless they could get a great many spec-
tators, and so break up a great many congregations ;
and as they hurried the spectators fast on to perdition,
they had to be shut on Sunday, so as to keep " a great
many congregations " out of perdition. It is exceed-
ingly difficult to see how a Sunday circus in the fourth
century could hurry to perdition any one who did not
attend it ; or how a Sunday train in the nineteenth cent-
ury can hurry to perdition any one who does not ride
on it. And if any are hurried to perdition by this
means, who is to blame : the Sunday train, or the ones
who ride on it ? And Dr. Johnson's complaint of the
Sunday papers, is of the same flimsy piece. If the Sun-
day paper gets into a man's house, where lies the
blame : upon the paper, or upon the one who takes it
and reads it ? Right here lies the secret of the whole
evil now, as it did in the fourth century : they blame
everybody and everything else, even to inanimate
things, for the irreligion, the infidelity, and the sin that
lie in their own hearts.
When they shall have stopped all Sunday work, and
all Sunday papers, and all Sunday trains, in order that
the people may go to church and attend to things di-
vine, suppose that then the people fail to go to church
or attend. to things divine : will the religio-political
managers stop there ? Having done all this that the
SHALL THE CHURCH COMPEL 'THE CIVIL POWER? 85
people may be devoted, will they suffer their good.in-

tentions to be frustrated, or their good offices to be de-
spised ? Will not these now take the next logical step,
—the step that was taken in the fourth century,—and
compel men to attend to things divine ? Having taken
all the stepsbut this, will they not take this ? Having
compelled men to rest, will they stop short of an effort to
supply the religious sanctions which alone can prevent
a day of enforced rest from being a day of enforced idle-
ness, and consequently of wickedness ? The probability
that they will not is strengthened by the fact that the
theory upon which this is carried on is identical with
that of the fourth century—the theory of a theocracy.
I have cited the theocratical purpose of the Woman's
Christian Temperance Union. The National Reform
Association, whose secretary stood at this table to-day
to plead for the passage of this bill, aims directly at the
establishment of a theocracy in this Government. In
their own words, they propose to make this republic
"as truly and really a theocracy as the commonwealth
of Israel."
The Sunday-law Association also holds much the
same theory. In the Elgin Sunday-law convention,
Dr. Mandeville, of Chicago, said : —
" The merchants of Tyre insisted upon selling goods
near the temple on the Sabbath, and Nehemiah com-
pelled the officers of the law to do their duty, and stop
it. So we can compel the officers of the law to do their
duty."
Nehemiah was ruling there in a true theocracy, a
government of God ; the law of God was the law of the
land, and God's will was made known by the written
word, and by the prophets. Therefore if Dr. Mande-
ville's argument is of any force at all, it is so only upon
the claim of the establishment of a theocracy. With

this idea the view of Dr. Crafts agrees precisely, and
Dr. Crafts is general field secretary for the National
Sunday-law Union. He claims, as expressed in his
own words, that—
"The preachers are the successors of the prophets."
— Christian Statesman, Yuly 5, 1888.
Now put these things together. The government of
Israel was a theocracy; the will of God was made
known to the ruler by prophets ; the ruler compelled
the officers of the law to prevent the ungodly from
selling goods on the Sabbath. This government is to
be made a theocracy ; the preachers are the successors
of the prophets ; and they are to compel the officers of
the law to prevent all selling of goods and all manner
of work on Sunday. This shows conclusively that these
preachers intend to take the supremacy into their hands,
officially declare the will of God, and compel all men to
conform to it. And this deduction is made certain by
the words of Prof. Blanchard, in the Elgin conven-
tion : —
" In this work we are undertaking for the Sabbath,
we are the representatives of God."
And the chief of these representatives of God, will
be but a pope again ; because when preachers control
the civil power as the representatives of God, a pope is
inevitable.
These quotations prove, to a demonstration, that the
whole theory upon which this religio-political move-
ment is based, is identical with that of the fourth cent-
ury, which established the papacy. They show also
that the means employed — Sunday laws — by which
to gain control of the civil power to make the wicked
THE CARDINAL KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING. 87
theory effective, are identical with the means ,which

were employed in the fourth century for the same pur-
pose. The next question is, Will they carry the theory
into effect as they did in the fourth century and on-
ward ? In other words, when they get the power to
oppress, will they use the power? A sufficient answer
to this would seem to be the simple inquiry, If they do
not intend to use the power, then why are they making
such strenuous efforts to get it ? If Congress lets them
have the power, they will surely use it. Human nature
is the same now as it was in the fourth century. Poli-
tics is the same now as it was then. And as for relig-
ious bigotry, it knows no centuries ; it knows no such
thing as progress or enlightenment ; it is ever the same.
And in its control of civil power, the cruel results are
also ever the same
How appropriate, therefore, is it that Cardinal Gib-
bons should indorse the national Sunday bill ! How
natural, indeed, that he should gladly add his name to
the number of petitioners in support of the movement
to secure legislation in the interests of the church ! He
knows just how his brethren in the fourth century
worked the same kind of scheme ; he knows what the
outcome of the movement was then ; and he knows full
well what the outcome of this movement will be now.
He knows that the theory underlying this movement is
identical with the theory which was the basis of that ;
he knows the methods of working are the same now as
they were then ; he knows that the means • employed
to secure control of the civil power now, are identical
with the means employed then ; and he knows that the
result must be the same. He knows that when religion
shall have been established as an essential element in
legislation in this Government, the experience of fifteen
hundred eventful years, and "the ingenuity and patient

care " of fifty generations of statesmen, will not be lost
in the effort to make the papal power supreme over all
here and now, as was done there and then. And in
carrying out the instructions of Pope Leo XIII., that
" all Catholics should do all in their power to cause the
constitutions of States and legislation to be modeled
upon the principles of the true church," the Cardinal as-
suredly is glad to have the opportunity to add his name
to the more than six millions of Protestants who are set
for the accomplishment of the same task.
To those Protestants who are so anxious to make
religion a subject of legislation, it now appears very
desirable ; and it also appears a very pleasant thing to
secure the alliance of the papacy. But when they shall
have accomplished the feat, and find themselves in the
midst of a continuous whirl of political strife and con-
tention with the papacy, not alone for supremacy, but
for existence,— then they will find it not nearly so de-
sirable as it now appears to their vision, blinded by the
lust for illegitimate power.
And when they find themselves compelled to pay
more than they bargained to, they will have but them-
selves to blame ; for when they make religion a subject
of legislation, they therein confess that it is justly sub-
ject to the rule of majorities. And then, if the Romish
Church secures the majority, arid compels the Protest-
ants to conform to Catholic forms and ordinances, the
Protestants cannot justly complain. Knowing, as we
do, the outcome of the same kind of movement before,
we do not propose to allow this scheme to be worked
out here without a decided protest.
Senator Blair. — Y ou are entirely logical, because
you say there should be no Sunday legislation by State
or nation either.
THE ARGUMENT IS LOGICAL. 89
Mr. zones. —Y es, sir, of course I am logical, all the

way through. I want to show you the wicked prin-
ciple upon which this whole system is founded, and
the reason I do this is because the last step is involved
in the first one. If you allow this principle and this
movement to take the first step, those who get the
power will see the end that they take the last step.
That is the danger. See how in the fourth century the
logic of it ended only with the Inquisition.
Senator Blair. — Was the Inquisition abolished by
the abolition of the Sunday laws ?
Mr. Zones.— No ; but the principle of it was estab-
lished by Sunday laws.
Senator Blair. — Then if the Inquisition was estab-
lished by the Sunday laws, how was it abolished, but by
the abolition of the Sabbath ? How can you remove
an effect except by removing its cause ?
Mr. zones. —The Sunday laws never have been
abolished.
Senator Blair.— Then the Sunday law could not
have been the cause of the Inquisition.
Mr. Zones.— The power which embodies the Inqui-
sition still continues, and its emissaries have been in
this country defending the Inquisition. That same
power is now grasping for the control of the civil law,
and the same causes generally produce the same effects.
Senator Blair. —And the removal of the causes
removes the effects with them.
Mr. Jones. —Sometimes.
Senator Blair. — Therefore the Sunday laws were
not the cause of the Inquisition, unless the Inquisition
still exists.
Mr. Jones. —No, the Sunday laws did not cause the
Inquisition.
Senator Blair.— I understood you to say that it did.
•
Mr. zones. — I say, through that the church received
the power to make the principle and the work of the
Inquisition effective. A certain exercise of power
may be forbidden, and yet the means by which the
power was obtained may not be forbidden. In other
words, the power which was obtained through the
deception of Sunday laws, may be prohibited in certain
things, and yet allowed in many other things.
Senator Blair. — The Lord made the Sabbath, and
governed the Jewish nation for nearly three thousand
years with a Sabbath. Do you think the Sabbath was
for the good of the Jewish people, or for their injury ?
Mr. Jones. — It was established for the good of the
human race.
Senator Blair. — Including the Jewish people ?
Mr. Jones. —Y es, sir.
Senator Blair. — It was established as a part of the
civil administration.
Mr. Jones. — But the church and the State were one.
Senator Blair. — Therefore what we call the civil ad-
ministration was included in that theocracy.
Mr. Jones. — The church and the State were one.
They were united, and it was a theocracy.
Senator Blair. — If the administration of the Sabbath
during these three thousand years, at least, was for the
good of the Jews and the human race, why will not the
Sabbath be good for the Jews and the human race since
the time of Christ, as well as before ?
Mr. Jones. — It is for the good of the human race.
Senator Blair. — The civil law must administrate it
if it is done. Then we will get no Sabbath now under
our division of powers of government, unless we have
the Sabbath recognized and enforced by the State au-
thority ?
SUNDAY LAWS MEAN CHURCH AND STATE. 91
Mr. Jones. Certainly we have a Sabbath.

Senator Blair. — Your proposition is to strike out
the Sabbath from the Constitution and condition of so-
ciety in these modern times ?
Mr. Jones. — No, sir.
Senator Blair. — Certainly so far as its existence
and enactment and enforcement by law are concerned.
Mr. Jones. — Yes, by civil law.
Senator Blair. — It was enforced in what we call the
civil conduct of men under that theocratic form of gov-
ernment for at least three thousand years.
Mr. Jones. — Certainly.
Senator Blair. — Now the observance of the Sabbath
depends upon a compulsory observance of the law.
Mr. Jones. — Not at all.
Senator Blair. — It required the law of God which
he enforced by death, by stoning men to death when
they violated it, and we have the Sabbath day only by
virtue of what we call the civil law, which is equally a
part of God's law.
Mr. Jones. — That government was not organized
specially to enforce the Sabbath.
Senator Blair.— They stoned men to death who vio-
lated the law.
Mr. Jones. — Certainly ; and likewise for the trans-
gression of the other commandments.
Senator Blair. — God enforced it, in other words, by
human means.
Mr. Jones. — Certainly ; my answer to all that is
that that was a theocracy, — a union of church and
state. The church was the State, and the State was
the church.
Senator Blair. — You say now that there is no State
to enforce it ?
Mr. Jones. — I say that no government can enforce

the Sabbath, or those things which pertain to God, ex-
cept a theocratic government — a union of church and
state. Therefore I say that if you establish such a law
as is here proposed, you lead directly to a union of
church and state. The logic of the question demands
it, and that is where it will end, because the law cannot
be enforced otherwise. These gentlemen say they do
not want a union of church and state. What they
mean by church and state is, for the State to select one
particular denomination, and make it the favorite above
all other denominations. That is a union of church
and state according to their idea. But a union of
church and state was formed by Constantine when he
recognized Christianity as the religion of the Roman
empire. Everybody knows that that was a union of
church and state, and that it ended in the papacy. A
union of church and state is where the ecclesiastical
power controls the civil power, and uses the civil power
in its own interests. That is where this movement will
end, and that is one of the reasons why we oppose it.
Senator Blair. — You say the church and state sep-
arated shall not do those proper things which the
church and state always did when united in the the-
ocracy?
Mr. Jones. — No, sir.
Senator Blair. —Then why do you say that the
state —
Mr. Jones. — I did not mean to deny your proposi-
tion ; I think the way you intended, I mean "Yes,"
because I certainly do say that the church and state
separated shall do those proper things which were done
when they were united in the theocracy.
Senator Blair. — If in this division of the powers of
ONLY GOD CAN ENFORCE THE DECALOGUE. 93
government into church and state, you exclude from

the powers of the church the establishment and en-
forcement and regulation of the Sabbath, why do you
not necessarily, if the Sabbath is a good thing, pass it
over to the control of the State ?
Mr. Yones.— Because if the church will not recognize
it and preserve it, the State cannot compel people to do
it. The State that attempts it is bound to fail.
Senator Blair. —Then you necessarily take the
ground that God did wrong in the enforcement of the
Sabbath during those three thousand years when his
government was both church and state.
Mr. Yones.—No, sir. If God would come himself
to govern, and make himself governor, as he did of
Israel, he could enforce the law as he did there. But
until God does that, we deny the right of all the
churches or anybody else, to do it.
Senator Blair.—Even if it is for the good of society ?
Mr. yones.— What they say is for the good of soci-
ety is for the ruin of society.
Senator Blair. — Do you understand that it is the
church or the State that is making this law ?
Mr. Jones. — It is the State that is doing it, just as
Constantine did it, to satisfy the churches.
Senator Blair. — It may or may not satisfy the
churches. The churches give their reasons here, which
may be right or wrong, for the establishment of the
Sabbath —for this Sunday legislation in all the States.
The State, the whole people, make the law. You say
that the whole people shall not make a good law
because the churches ask for it.
Mr. Jones. — I say the whole people shall not make
a bad law, even though the churches do demand it ;
for any civil law relating to God is a bad law.
Senator Blair.— Then what God did for three thou-

sand years for the good of the. Jews and the human
race, was wrong ?
Mr. zones. — No, sir ; it was right.
Senator Blair. — Then why not continue it ?
Mr. ,ones.—Because he has discontinued that kind
of government.
Senator Blair. — We have done nothing in the world
to divide the powers of government into those of church
and state. We say those departments shall not inter-
fere with each other.
Mr: Jones. —Certainly.
Senator Blair. —Here and in the States we are try-
ing to run the civil parts. We have taken jurisdic-
tion of a portion of what God has entire jurisdiction,
as to the church and state in the civil relations of men.
The entire society does that. We put the sovereignty
into the hands of everybody except women, and some
of us are trying to do that. We have the same subject-
matter, the good of society under our control, which
under the theocracy was united into both church and
state. If you do not let the State continue to do what
was essential to society then, and is now, you are strik-
ing at one of the great ends for which government ex-
ists.
Mr. Jones.— Not at all ; because God has discontin-
ued that kind of government.
Senator Blair.— He has not discontinued the neces-
sity of laws for the regulation of society.
Mr. Jones. — He has in that way.
Senator Blair. — No ; it is just as necessary that
there should be a Sabbath now for the good of man, as
when God made and enforced the law by his direct' su-
pervision under a theocracy.
NO EARTHLY THEOCRACY - NO SUNDAY LAWS. 95
Mr. Tones. --But no government but a theocracy

can enforce such laws.
Senator Blair. — Then unless we have a theocracy,
we shall have no Sabbath.
Mr. Yones. — We shall have no laws regulating the
Sabbath.
Senator Blair. — The Sabbath did not descend to
the Jews and to all mankind, because there was a theo- '
cratic form of government among the Jews. How did
the Sabbath come to mankind at large, when there was
no theocratic form of government ?
Mr. yones. —Those nations never kept it. Nobody
but the Jews ever kept it.
Senator Blair. — They could have kept it, because
you say the Sabbath existed for all ; not for the Jews
atone, but for the human race.
Mr. Jones. — Certainly, but if they did not keep it,
it would do no good.
Senator Blair. — It did not exist for good, then ?
Mr. Jones. — Certainly ; a thing may exist for my
good, and I may refuse to use it, as thousands do the
salvation of Christ.
Senator Blair. —I was taking your statement as true
that it did exist for good outside of the Jews.
Mr. Jones. — I said it was for the good of man. The
Saviour said it was for the good of man. The Saviour
died for the good of man.
Senator Blair. —You would abolish the Sabbath,
anyway ?
Mr. Jones. — Yes, in the civil law.
Senator Blair. -- You would abolish any Sabbath
from human practice which shall be in the form of
law, unless the individual here and there sees fit to
observe it ?
Mr. Jones. — Certainly ; that is a matter between

man and his God.
Senator Blair.— Your time has expired. Please
take five minutes to close, as I have asked you some
questions ; still, they were questions that touched the
trouble in my own mind.
Mr. Jones. —Certainly ; but I supposed that I was
to have an hour to devote, uninterruptedly, to the
points in question.
Senator Blair. — We have always been accustomed
to conducting these hearings with reference to getting
at the difficulties we had in our own minds, and I do
not feel as though you could complain with an hour
and ten minutes, if we give you ten minutes more.
Mr. Jones.— Very good. Mr. Chairman, I have
shown that in the fourth century this same movement
developed a theocracy and in that the papacy, religious
despotism, and oppression for conscience' sake. Now I
want to show the secret of at least a portion of the
present movement. The representative of the National
Reform Association spoke here in behalf of this proposed
legislation. That Association is asking for such a law
and for such an amendment to the Constitution as you
have proposed, in relation to the Christian religion in
the public schools. That measure pleases them well,
and this proposed Sunday law pleases them well.
Senator Blair. — Just incorporate that proposed
amendment to the Constitution in your remarks.
Mr. Jones. —Very well ; it is as follows : —
"50th CONGRESS,
S. R. 86.
1st SESSION.
" Joint Resolution, proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United State. respecting establish-
ments of religion and free public schools.
A NATIONAL RELIGION PROPOSED. 97
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

of the United States of America in Congress assembled
(two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That
the following amendment to the .Constitution of the
United States be, and hereby is, proposed to the
States, to become valid when ratified by the legisla-
tures of three-fourths of the States, as provided in the
Constitution :—
" ARTICLE.
" SECTION 1. No State shall ever make or maintain
any law respecting an establishment of religion, or pro-
hibiting the free exercise thereof.
" SEC. 2. Each State in this Union shall establish
and maintain a system of free public schools adequate
for the education of all the children living therein, be-
tween the ages of six and sixteen years, inclusive, in
the common branches of knowledge, and in virtue, mor-
ality, and the principles of the Christian religion. But
no money raised by taxation imposed by law, or any
money or other property or credit belonging to any
municipal organization, or to any State, or to the
United States, shall ever be appropriated, applied, or
given to the use or purposes of any school, institution,
corporation, or person, whereby instruction or training
shall be given in the doctrines, tenets, belief, ceremo-
nials, or observances peculiar to any sect, denomina-
tion, organization, or society, being, or claiming to be,
religious in its character ; nor shall such peculiar doc-
trines; tenets, belief, ceremonials, or observances be
taught or inculcated in the free public schools.
" SEC. 3. To the end that each State, the United
States, and all the people thereof, may have and pre-
serve governments republican in form and in substance,
the United States shall guaranty to every State, and to
the people of every State and of the United States, the
support and maintenance of such a system of free public
schools as is herein provided.
" SEC. 4. That Congress shall enforce this article by
legislation when necessary."
What, then, do these men propose to do with .the

civil power when they can use it ? The Christian
Statesman is the organ of that Association, and in its
issue. of Oct. 2, 1884, said : —
" Give all men to understand that this is a Christian

nation, and that, believing that without Christianity we
perish, we must maintain by all means our Christian
character. Inscribe this character on our Constitution.
Enforce upon all who come among us the laws of Chris-
tian morality."
To enforce upon men the laws of Christian morality,
is nothing else than an attempt to compel them to be
Christians, and does in fact compel them to be hypo-
crites. It will be seen at once that this will be but to
invade the rights of conscience, and this, one of the
vice-presidents of the Association declares, civil power
has the right tO do. Rev. David Gregg, D. D., now
pastor of Park Street Church, Boston, a vice-president
of the National Reform Association, plainly declared in
the Christian Statesman of June 5, 1884, that the civil
power " has the right to command the consciences of
men."
Rev. M. A. Gault, a, district secretary and a leading
worker of the Association, says :—
" Our remedy for all these malefic influences, is to

have the Government simply set up the moral law and
recognize God's authority behind it, and lay its hand on
any religion that does not conform to it." -
When they have the Government lay its hand on
dissenters, what will they have it do ? Rev. E. B. Gra-
ham, also a vice-president of the Association, in an
address delivered at York, Neb., and reported in the
Christian Statesman of May 21, 1885, said : —
NORSE THAN RUSSIA. 9'0
We might add in all justice, If the opponents of the

Bible do not like our Government and its Christian
features, let them go to some wild, desolate land, and
in the name of the Devil, and for the sake of the Devil,
subdue it, and set up a government of their own on
infidel and atheistic ideas ; and then if they can stand
it, stay there till they die."
That is what they propose to do. And that is worse
than Russia. In the Century for April, 1888, Mr. Ken-
nan gave a view of the statutes of Russia on the subject
of crimes against the faith, quoting statute after statute
providing that whoever shall censure the Christian faith
or the orthodox church, or the Scriptures, or the holy
sacraments, or the saints, or their images, or the Virgin
Mary, or the angels, or Christ, or God, shall be deprived
of all civil rights, and exiled for life to the most remote
parts of Siberia. This is the system in Russia, and it is
in the direct line of the wishes of the National Reform
Association.
Nor is that all: Rev. Jonathan Edwards, D. D.,
another vice-president of that Association, makes all
dissenters atheists. He names atheists, deists, Jews,
and Seventh-day Baptists, then classes them all to-
gether as atheists. I will read his own words : —
" These all are, for the occasion, and so far as our
amendment is concerned, one class. They use the same
arguments and the same tactics against us. They must
be counted together, which we very much regret, but
which we cannot help. The first-named is the leader
in the discontent and in the outcry — the atheist, to
whom nothing is higher or more sacred than man, and
nothing survives the tomb. It is his class. Its labors
are almost wholly in his interest ; its success would be
almost wholly his triumph. The rest- are adjuncts to
him in this contest, They must be named from him ;
they must be treated as, for this question, one party."
100 THE NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW:
They class us as atheists, and are going to condemn

all alike ; and you are asked to give them the power.
Remember these are the views of the members of the
National Reform Association, whose secretary stood
at this table this morning in defense of this Sunday
law. These extracts show what his idea's are, and how
he would use them. Dr. Everts, of Chicago, who also
was here, declared last month in Chicago, in my hear-
ing, on the subject of this Sunday law, that "it is athe-
ism or the Sabbath."
Mr. Edwards continues :—
" What are the rights of the atheist ? I would tol-
erate him as I would tolerate a poor lunatic ; for in my
view his mind is scarcely sound. So long as he does
not rave, so long as he is not dangerous, I would toler-
ate him. I would tolerate him as I would a conspirator.
The atheist is a dangerous man. Yes, to this extent I
will tolerate the atheist ; but no more. Why should I ?
The atheist does not tolerate me. He does not smile
either in pity or in scorn upon my faith. He hates my
faith, and he hates me for my faith. . . . I can tolerate
difference and discussion ; I can tolerate heresy and
false religion ; I can debate the use of the Bible in
our common schools, the taxation of church property,
the propriety of chaplaincies and the like, but there
are some questions past debate. Tolerate atheism,
sir ? There is nothing out of hell that I would not tol-
erate as soon ! The atheist may live, as I have said ;
but, God helping us, the taint of his destructive creed
shall not defile any of the civil institutions of all this
fair land ! Let us repeat, atheism and Christianity are
contradictory terms. They are incompatible systems.
They cannot dwell together on the same continent!"
Senator Blair.— Many atheists are for Sunday laws.
Mr. Yones.—Let them be so if they choose ; but
what I am striking at, is that these men have no right
THE STATE NOT A RELIGIOUS PARTISAN. 101
to say that I am an atheist simply because I do not be-

lieve in keeping Sunday.
Senator Blair. — You come here and seriously ar-
gue against these people, because they and the athe-
ists blackguard each other. What have we to do with
that ? They abuse each other. It is worse in the
Christian than in the atheist, because the Christian has
some rules to guide his conduct, which the atheist has
not. Here seems to be some strong intemperate lan-
guage which one human being makes use of towards
another. An atheist or a Christian alike may find fault
with that. I do not know any way that we can inter-
fere with it ; but if you claim to argue against this bill
because these people abuse atheists, I reply to that by
saying that many atheists are for this bill just as these
people are. They unite in support of this bill, there-
fore mutual recriminations amount to nothing.
Mr. zones. — But the mutual recrimination amounts
to this, that although this is confined simply to words
between them now, —
Senator Blair.— I do not think you ought to argue
to us by taking this precious time of yours and ours
to show that these people use intemperate language
towards each other.
Mr. zones. —But I am doing it to show that they
use the intemperate language now, but if they get the
law, they will use more than the language against them.
These men only want to make the State a party to their
religious disputes. They want to get the nation by law
to commit itself to the defense of religious observances,
so they can add its power to their side of the contro-
versy, and send to " hell " or some other place where
the Devil is, those who even accidentally disagree with
them. But the State has no business to allow itself to
102 THE NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW..
be made a party to any religious controversy. That

has been the bane of every nation except this, and God
forbid that this one should be dragged from its high
estate, and made the tool of the irregular passions of
religious parties. The State will find its legitimate
employment in seeing that these parties keep their
hands off each other, and that the ebullitions of their
religious zeal are kept within the bounds of civility. It
is not safe to put civil power into the hands of such
men as these. But that is just what this Sunday bill
will do if it shall pass.
Senator Blair. — The atheist is for this proposed law.
He is not intelligently going to support a law which en-
ables these people to burn him at the stake.
Mr. zones.— I know he is not intelligently going to
do it.
Senator Blair. — He is liable to be as intelligent as
they are. Mr. Hume was a very intelligent man ; so
was Voltaire ; so was Franklin, if Franklin was an athe-
ist ; Franklin was a deist, at all events.
Mr. yones.—It is safe to say that not one in ten of
the people whose names are signed in behalf of this
Sunday law know what is the intention of it, and what
those will do with it when they get it.
Senator Blair. — Then it is a lack of intelligence on
their part.
Mr. yones.—I know people who signed that petition
who would now be just as far from signing it as I would.
Senator Blair.— That is because you told them of
those terrible consequences which they had not believed
would follow. The masses of the people do not believe
that the Christian people of this country have united in
every State in this Union for such a purpose.
Mr. Jones.— Here is the principle : Here are six mill-
ion Protestants and seven million two hundred thou-
sand Catholics —
SHALL THIS MAJORITY RULE ? 103
Senator Blair. — Cardinal Gibbons has written a let-

ter which is in evidence. He is for it, and a great many
Catholics are also for it ; but it does not follow that
those Catholics are for it simply because Cardinal Gib-
bons wrote that letter. They were for it before Car-
dinal Gibbons wrote the letter. You must remember
that the Catholics in this country are intelligent, as well
as we. Some of them are ignorant, some of us are ig-
norant.
Mr. yones.—But here is the point. These people
are complaining of the continental Sunday —
Senator Blair.— They do not complain of it because
it is Catholic ; they complain of it because it is not as
good for the people as our form of Sunday.
Mr. yones.— Certainly. And in this movement, the
American Sunday, they say, comes from the Puritans,
and these people know —
Senator Blair. — Do you argue against it because it
comes from the Puritans, or because it comes from the
Catholics ? It comes from both, you say ; we say it is
for the good of society, and that God is for it, because
it is for the good of man.
Mr. Jones. — But let me state the point that I am
making : I think everybody knows that it is perfectly
consistent with the Catholic keeping of Sunday for the
Catholic to go to church in the morning and to the
pleasure resort if he chooses in the afternoon. These
men stand here in convention, and cry out ag.ainst the
continental Sunday and against its introduction here.
Everybody knows that the continental Sunday is the
Roman Catholic Sunday. Yet these men, while de-
nouncing the continental Suriday, join hands with the
Roman Catholics to secure this Sunday law. They
have counted here six million Protestants and seven
million two hundred thousand Catholics. Suppose this
law were secured in answer to these petitions, would
they then have a Puritan Sabbath, or a continental Sun-

day ? In other words, would the six million Protestants
compel the seven million two hundred thousand Cath-
olics to keep Sunday in the Puritan, or even the Prot-
estant way, or will the seven million two hundred thou-
sand Catholics do as they please on Sunday, and let the
six million Protestants whistle for " the breath of the
Puritan " which Dr. Herrick Johnson invokes ? More
than this, if it should come to compulsion between
these, would not the seven million two hundred thou-
sand Catholics be able to make it unpleasant for the six
million Protestants ?
Senator Blair. — I have been all through this that
the working people go through. I have been hungry
when a boy. The first thing I can remember about is
being hungry. I know how the working people feel. I
have tugged along through the week, and been tired
out Saturday night, and I have been where I would
have been compelled to work to the next Monday
morning if there had been no law against it. I would
not have had any chance to get that twenty-four hours
of rest if the Sunday law had not given it to me. It
was a civil law under which I got it. The masses of
the working people in this country would never get that
twenty-four hours' rest if there had not been a law of
the land that gave it to us. There is that practical
fact, and we are fighting with that state of things. The
tired and hungry men, women, and children, all over
this country, want a chance to lie down, and rest for
twenty-four hours out of the whole seven days.
Mr. yones.— So have I been through this that the
working people go through. I have carried the hod by
the day. I have swung the hammer and shoved the
plane by the day. I am a working-man now just as
much as I ever was, though not in precisely the same
way ; and I say to you that I never was robbed of that
SUNDAY LAWS AND THE WORKING-MEN. 105
twenty-four hours' rest. Nor are there so many com-

pelled to lose it as these Sunday-law advocates try to
make out. Dr. Crafts said last night over in that con-
vention that he had had communicatiqn with people in
every nation but two, and —
" In the world around he could not find a man who

had financially lost by refusing to work on Sunday. But
many have gained by the conscientious sacrifice."
Much testimony was borne in the Chicago conven-

tion last month to the same effect in this country ; and
in the convention now in session in this city, the Hon.
Mr. Dingley, member of Congress from Maine, said last
night that the American working-men are indifferent to
the efforts which are put forth in this direction.
Senator Blair.—Hels wrong about it. Mr. Dingley
didn't know, what he was talking about when he said
that.
Mr. zones. — He said he had investigated the matter.
Senator Blair. — I have investigated it, and I say
that Mr. Dingley was simply laboring under a misappre-
hension.
Mr. zones. — Dr. Crafts said this morning that he
talked two hours with a convention of laboring men at
Indianapolis, answering their questions, until at the end
of two hours they indorsed this movement. If they are
crying for it, if they are fairly tearing their hair for it,
how can it be possible that he had to talk two hours to
persuade them that it was all right ?
Senator Blair. — Take his statement in full, if you
take it at all: He says they are crying for it.
Mr. zones. — Then why was it necessary to talk to
them for two hours ?
Senator Blair. —Then you simply say he did not tell
the truth ? You discredit the witness ?
Mr. "'ones.— I do.
Senator Blair. —You say perhaps he did not tell the

truth, that is all.. I think he was right.
Mr. Jones. — But the two things do not hitch together
properly. If they are calling for it so loudly, certainly
it ought not to require two hours to convert them. The
fact is that the laboring men are not calling for'it.
Great effort is being made to have it appear so. But
the Knights of Labor never took any such step except
at the solicitation of Dr. Crafts. This bill had scarcely
been introduced last spring before Dr. Crafts made a
trip to Chicago and other cities, soliciting the indorse-
ment of the Knights of Labor. Instead of their petition-
ing for this Sunday law, they have first been petitioned
to petition for it ; the object of it had to be explained,
and objections answered, before they could even be
brought to support it. The object of the petition for
this bill was explained by Dr. Crafts to the Central
Labor Union of New York, and its indorsement secured.
The Central Labor Union embraces a number of labor
organizations, and the Christian Union declares the
Central Labor Union to be a "radically Socialistic" or-
ganization. This, in itself, would not be particularly
significant were it not for the fact that the arguments
which Dr. Crafts presents to these organizations to gain
their support are entirely Socialistic. Nor are these
confined to Dr. Crafts. Other leaders of the movement
also advocate the same principles.
Dr. Crafts went to the General Assembly of the
Knights of Labor at Indianapolis last month to get the
delegates there to indorse the petition for the passage
of this Sunday bill. He has referred to this in his speech
here this forenoon, and has made a portion of his speech
to them and to the Locomotive Engineers a part of his
speech here. A report of his speech at Indianapolis was
printed in the Journal of United Labor, the official jour-
nal of the Knights of Labor of America, Thursday, Nov,
29, 1888. He said to them there ;
SUNDAY LAWS AND THE WORKING-MEN. 107
" Having carefully read and re-read your declara-

tion of principles' and your constitution,' and having
watched with interest the brave yet conservative shots
of your Powderly at intemperance and other great evils,
I have found myself so closely in accord with you that
I have almost decided to become a Knight of Labor
myself. If I do not, it will be only because I believe I
can advance your principles' better as an outside ally."
The following question was asked by one of the
Knights:—
"Would it not be the best way to stop Sunday trains
to have the Government own and control the railroads
altogether, as the Knights advocate ?"
Dr. Crafts answered : —
" I believe in that. Perhaps the best way to begin
the discussion of Government control for seven days
per week is to discuss this bill for Government control
on one day. If the railroads refuse the little we now
ask, the people will be the more ready to take control
altogether."
The Knights of Labor advocate the doctrine that the
Government shall take control of all the railroads in the
country, and hire the idle men in the country at reg-
ular railroad wages, and run the roads, as it now runs
the Post-office Department, without reference to the
question whether anything is made or lost by the Gov-
ernment. This is what gave rise to the above question.
Dr. Crafts proposes to play into their hands by making
the bid for their support, that if they will help the Sun-
day-law workers get Government control of the rail-
roads one day in the week, then the Sunday-law workers
will help the Knights to get Government control every
day in the week.
Another question that was discussed both there and
at the convention of Locomotive Engineers at Rich-
mond, Va., was the following : —
" Will not one day's less work per week mean one-
seventh less. wages ?"
The response to this was as follows : —
" As much railroad work as is done in seven days
can be done in six days, and done better, because of
the better condition of the men. And on this ground
the engineers would be sustained in demanding, and, if
necessary, compelling, the railroad company to so re-
adjust the pay schedule that the men will be paid as
much as at present."
That is to say, Dr. Crafts and the Sunday-law work-
ers propose to stand in with the laboring men to com-
pel employers to pay seven days' wages for six days'
work. This is made certain by the following petition
to the State legislatures, which is being circulated ev-
erywhere with the petition for this bill. I got this at the
Chicago convention. Dr. Crafts distributed the peti-
tions by the quantity there, and he is doing the same at
the convention now in this city : —
" To the State Senate [or House]: The undersigned
earnestly petition your honorable body to pass a bill
forbidding any one to hire another, or to be hired for
more than six days in any week, except in domestic
service, and the care of the sick ; in order that those
whom law or custom permits to work on Sunday may
be protected in their right to some other weekly rest-
day, and in their right to a week's wages for six days'
work."
Now a week consists of seven days. A week's
wages for six days' work is seven days' wages for six
days' work. This petition asks the legislatures of all
the States to pass a law protecting employees in their
right to seven days' wages for six days' work. No man
in this world has any right to seven days' wages for six
days' work. If he has a right to seven days' wages for
six days' work, then he has an equal right to six days'
WAGES FOR DOING NOTHING. 109
wages for five days' work ; and to five days' wages for
four days' work ; and to four days' wages for three days'
work ; to three days' wages for two days' work ; to
two days' wages for one day's work ; and to one day's
wages for no work at all. This is precisely what the
proposition amounts to. For in proposing to pay seven
days' wages for six days' work, it does propose to pay
one day's wages for no work. But if a man is entitled
to one day's wages for doing nothing, why stop with
one day ? Why not go on and pay him full wages every
day for doing nothing ? It may be thought that I mis-
interpret the meaning of the petition ; that, as it asks
that nobody be allowed to hire another for more than
six days of any week, it may mean only that six days
are to compose a week ; and that it is a week's wages of
six days only that is to be paid for six days' work.
That is not the meaning of the petition. It is not the
intention of those who are gaining the support of the
Knights of Labor by inventing and circulating the
petition.
Dr. George Elliott, pastor of the Foundry Metho-
dist Church in this city, — the church in which this Na-
tional Sunday Convention is being held, — the church
that is now festooned with fourteen million petitions
that they have n't got, — festooned, at least partly, with
one seven-million-two-hundred-thousand-times-multi-
plied Cardinal,—Dr. Elliott, while speaking in favor of
this bill this forenoon, was asked by Senator Call these
questions : —
" Do you propose that Congress shall make provision
to pay the people in the employ of the Government who
are exempted on Sunday, for Sunday work ? "
" Mr. Elliott. —I expect you to give them adequate
compensation.
" Senator Call. — Do you propose that the same
amount shall be paid for six days' work as for seven ?
"Mr. Elliott. — I do ; for the reason that we believe

these employees can do all the work that is to be done
in six days. And if they do all the work, they ought
to have all the pay."
There it is in plain, unmistakable words, that they
deliberately propose to have laws, State and national,
which shall compel employers to pay seven days' wages
for six days' work. This is sheer Socialism ; it is the very
essence of Socialism. No wonder they gained the unan-
imous indorsement of the convention of the Knights of
Labor, and of the Locomotive Engineers, and the So-
cialistic Labor Union of New York City, by proposing
to pay them good wages for doing nothing. I confess
that I, too, would support the bill upon such a proposi-
tion as that if I looked no further than the money that is
in it.
But this is not all. The4Knights of Labor not only
accept the proposition, but they carry it farther, and
logically, too. This principle has been advocated for
some time by the Knights of Labor in demanding ten
hours' pay for eight hours' work — virtually two hours'
pay for doing nothing. The Christian Union and the
Catholic Review propose to help the working-men se-
cure their demanded eight-hour law, and then have the
working-men help to get the six-day law by forbidding
all work on Sunday. Dr. Crafts and Dr. Elliott go a
step farther, and propose to secure the support of the
working-men by having laws enacted compelling em-
ployers to pay them full wages on Sunday for doing
nothing. But the Knights of Labor do not propose to
stop with this. The same copy of the journal of United
•Labor which contained the speech of Dr. Crafts, con-
tained the following in an editorial upon this point : —
" Why should not such a law be enacted ? All the
work now performed each week could easily be accom-
plished in five days of eight hours each if employment
WAGES FOR bOING NOTHING. 11.1
were given to the host of willing idle men who are now
walking the streets. It is a crime to force one portion
of a community to kill themselves by overwork, while
another portion of the same people are suffering from
privation and hunger, with no opportunity to labor.
The speech of the Rev. Mr. Crafts, published else-
where, furnishes an abundance of argument as to why •
such a law should be put in force."
So when the Sunday-law advocates propose to pay

a week's wages for six days' work of eight hours each,
because all the work can be done in six days that is
now done in seven, then the Knights of Labor propose
to have a week's wages for five days' work, because, by
employing all the idle men, all the work that is now
done in seven days can be done in five. And as Dr.
Elliott has said, " If they do all the work, they ought to
have all the pay." But if a week's wages are to be paid
for five days' work of eight hours each, that is to say, if
two days' wages can rightly be paid for no work at all,
why should the thing be stopped there ? If the Gov-
ernment is to take control of the railroads all the time
in order to pay two days' wages for doing nothing, and
if the States are to enact laws compelling employers to
pay employees two days' wages for doing nothing, then
why shall not the Government, both State and national,
take possession of everything, and pay the laboring men
full wages all the time for doing nothing ? For if men
have the right to one day's wages for no work, where is
the limit to the exercise of that right ? The fact of the
matter is that there is no limit. If a man is entitled to
wages for doing nothing part of the time, he is entitled
to wages for doing nothing all the time. And the prin-
ciple upon which Dr. Crafts and his other Sunday-law
confreres gain the support of the working-men to this
Sunday bill is nothing at all but the principle of down-
right Socialism.
There is a point right here that is worthy of the

serious consideration of the working-men. These Sun-
day-law workers profess great sympathy for the labor-
ing men in their struggle with the grinding monopolies,
and by Sunday laws they propose to deliver the work-
ing-men from the power of these monopolies. But in
the place of all these other monopolies,, they propose
to establish a monopoly of religion, and to have the
Government secure them in the perpetual enjoyment
of it. They may talk as much as they please about
the grasping, grinding greed of the many kinds of
monopolies, and there is truth in it ; but of all monop-
olies, the most greedy, the most grinding, the most
oppressive, the most conscienceless the world ever saw
or ever can see, is a religious monopoly. When these
managers of religious legislation have delivered the
working-men from the other monopolies—granting
that they can do it — then the important question is,
Who will deliver the working-men from the religious
monopoly ?
Senator Blair.— Abolish the law of rest, take it
away from the working people, and leave corporations
and saloon keepers and everybody at perfect liberty to
destroy that twenty-four hours of rest, and lawgivers
and law-makers will find out whether or not the people
want it, and whether they want those law-makers.
Mr. zones. — There are plenty of ways to help the
working-men without establishing a religious monopoly,
and enforcing religious observance upon all. There is
another point that comes in right here. Those who are
asking for the law and those who work for it, are those
who compel the people to work on Sunday. In the
Illinois State Sunday convention in Chicago last month,
it was stated in the first speech made in the convention,
" We remember how that the working-men are com-
pelled to desecrate the Sabbath by the great corpora-
CHURCH MEMBERS COMPEL WORK ON SUNDAY. 113
tions." The very next sentence was, " We remember

also that the stockholders, the owners of these rail-
roads, are members of the churches, that they sit in the
pews and bow their heads in the house of God on the
Sabbath day."
Senator Blair. — That is only saying that there are
hypocrites in this world. What has that to do with
this proposed law ?
Mr. ,'ones. — I am coming to that. It has a good
deal to do with it. The stockholders who own the rail-
roads act in this way, those men said ; and it was stated
by a minister in that convention that a railroad presi-
dent told him that there were more petitions for Sun-
day trains from preachers than from any other class.
Senator Blair.— There are a lot of hypocrites among
the preachers, then. •
Mr. yones.— Precisely ; although you yourself have
said it. I confess I have not the heart to dispute it.
Senator Blair. — I do not find any fault with that
statement. If it is true, it does not touch this question.
Mr. yones.— If these preachers and church mem-
bers will not keep the Sabbath in obedience to what
they say is the commandment of God, will they keep
it in obedience to the command of the State ?
Senator Blair. — Certainly the hard working man
needs rest ; the preachers, church members, and million-
aires may do as they please : the bill comes in here and
says that the national government, taking part of the
jurisdiction of the civil government of the United States
by a concession made by the States, by virtue of its
control of interstate commerce, and the post-office bus-
iness, and the army and navy, will take advantage of
what the States have given to the general Government
in the way of jurisdiction, and will not introduce prac-
tices which destroy the Sabbath in the States„ That is
the object of this legislation. That is all that is under-
taken .here. It is simply an act proposing to make

efficient the Sunday-rest laws of the State, and nothing
else.
Mr. yones. —But those laws are to be enforced, if
at all, by those who are so strongly in favor of them.
Senator Blair. — No, by the State. If these people
were in favor of them, or not in favor of them, or vio-
lated them, that is another thing. A man may be for a
law which he violates. A great many of the strongest
temperance people in the world use intoxicating liquors.
They say that they realize the evil, and that they are in
favor of the enactment of law which will extirpate those
evils. The strongest advocates I have ever seen of tem-
perance legislation are men who have come to realize
that the grave is just ahead of them. They cannot
get rid of the appetite, but they pray the Government
for legislation that will save the boys.
Mr. yones. — That is all right. I am in favor of
prohibition straight ; but not Sunday prohibition.
Senator Blair. — You cannot adduce a man's prac-
tice as a reply to the argument on a question that
touches the public good. It does not vitiate a man's
principle because he fails to live up to it himself.
Mr. zones. — But the secret of the whole matter is
this : As an argument for the Sunday law, these men
assert that the great railroad corporations desecrate the
Sabbath, and by persistently running Sunday trains,
also compel the railroad men to work and to desecrate
the day. They at the same time assert that the men
who own the railroads belong to the churches. If, then,
the railroads compel their men to desecrate the day,
and the owners of the railroads are church members,
then who is it but the church members that are com-
pelling people to desecrate the day ?
Further than this, they quoted at Chicago the state-
ment of a railroad president, that the roads " get more
THE PREACHERS DESECRATE THE DAY. 115
requests for Sunday trains signed by preachers " than

they do from other people. But as the church mem-
bers own the railroads, and the preachers request them
to run Sunday trains, then who is to blame for the
" desecration " of the day but the preachers and their
own church members ? Can 't the preachers stop ask-
ing for Sunday trains without being compelled to do so
by the civil law ? In the Chicago convention last
month — November 20, 21 —Dr. Knowles, who is sec-
retary of this National Sunday-law Union, said that by
the influence of William E. Dodge, even after his death,
the Delaware & Lackawanna Railroad Company had
resisted the temptation to run trains on Sunday until
the present year. But five hundred ministers met in
conference in New York and used competing lines on
Sunday, and by this the hands of the Sunday observ-
ance committee have been tied ever since. After that,
when the Delaware & Lackawanna directors were asked
not to run Sunday trains, they replied,—
"'How can you come to us pleading for us to run no
trains on Sunday, when your preachers by the hun-
dreds on Sunday use our rival lines, which do run on
Sunday. If your preachers ride on Sunday trains on
other roads, we cannot see why they and other people
cannot ride on our trains on Sunday. And if it is all
right for these other roads to run trains on Sunday, —
and certainly ministers of the gospel would not ride on
them if it were wrong, — then we cannot see how it can
be such a great wrong for us to run Sunday trains."
That is a very proper answer. No wonder the. Sun-
day committee's•hands are tied by it. And yet that
very conference of five hundred preachers, assembled
in New York last summer, took the first decided step
toward the organization of the National Sunday Asso-
ciation, of which Dr. Knowles himself is secretary.
By these facts there is presented the following con-
116 THE NATIONAL SUM/kV LAW.
dition of things : (1.) Church members own the rail-

roads ; (2.) Preachers sign requests for Sunday trains ;
(3.) The church members grant the request of the
preachers for Sunday trains, and the preachers ride on
the Sunday trains, and other church members go on
Sunday excursions ; (4.) Then the whole company
preachers and church members — together petition Con-
gress and the State legislatures to make a law stopping
all Sunday trains ! That is to say, they want the leg-
islatures, State and national, to 'compel their own rail-
road-owning church members not to grant the request
of the preachers for Sunday trains. In other words,
they want the civil power to compel them all—preach-
ers and church members—to act as they all say that
Christians ought to act. And they insist upon quoting
all the time the commandment of God, " Remember the
Sabbath day to keep it holy." But if they will not obey
the commandment of God, which they themselves ac-
knowledge and quote, what assurance have we that they
will obey the law of Congress or State legislature when
they get it, especially as it will rest entirely with them-
selves to see that the law is enforced ? Will they com-
pel themselves by civil law to do what they themselves
will not otherwise do ? The sum of this whole matter
is that they want the civil power to enforce church dis-
cipline ; and that not only upon themselves, but upon
everybody else. The whole system, and all the preten-
sions upon which this Sunday law is demanded, are
crooked.
As to the enforcement of the law, it will fall to those
who are Working to get it ; because certainly those who
do not want it will not enforce it, and the officers of the
law are not given to the enforcement of laws which are
not supported by public opinion. This is proved by the
fact that the State of Illinois and the city of Chicago
now have Sunday laws that ought to satisfy any reason-
WILL THEY COMPEL THEMSELVES? 117
able person, and yet not one of them is enforced. And

the preachers of that city and State, instead of seeing
that these are enforced, call convention after convention
to work up more Sunday laws, both State and national.
What, then, is the next intention ?— It is to make it
a political question in both State and nation, and make
the enactment and enforcement of Sunday laws the price
of votes and political support. This is proved by the
following resolutions adopted by the Elgin Sunday-law
convention : —
"Resolved, That we look with shame and sorrow on
the non-observance of the Sabbath by many Christian
people, in that the custom prevails with them of pur-
chasing Sabbath newspapers, engaging in and patron-
izing Sabbath business and travel, and in many instances
giving themselves to pleasure and self-indulgence, set-
ting aside by neglect and indifference the great duties
and privileges which God's day brings them.
"Resolved, That we give our votes and support to
those candidates or political officers who will pledge
themselves to vote for the enactment and enforcing of
statutes in favor of the civil Sabbath."
Such a resolution as this last may work in Illinois,
though it is doubtful, but with their own statement
made in that convention, it is certain that this resolu-
tion can never work under the Constitution of the
United States. They stated in the convention that the
Sabbath is " the test of all religion." To demand that
candidates or political officers shall pledge themselves
to vote for the enactment and enforcement of statutes
in favor of the Sabbath is, therefore, to require a relig-
ious test as a qualification for office. The national Con-
stitution-declares that "no religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office or public trust
under this Government ; " consequently, no Sabbath or
Sunday-law test can ever be applied to any candidate
for any national office or public trust.
It is true they use the word civil in the resolution,

but that corresponds with much of their other work.
There is not, and there cannot be, any such thing as a
civil Sabbath. The Sabbath is religious wholly, and
they know it ; and in all their discussion of this resolu-
tion and the subject generally in the convention, it was
as a religious institution, and that only.
Senator Blair. — Is there any other point you would
wish to present ?
Mr. ,ones. —There is another point, and that is,
that we will be sufferers under such a law when it is
passed. They propose to put in an exemption clause.
Some of them favor an exemption clause, but it would
not in the least degree check our opposition to the law if
forty exemption clauses were put in, unless, indeed, they
should insert a clause exempting everybody who does
not want to keep it. In that case, we might not object
so much.
Senator Blair. —You care not whether it is put in or
not ?
Mr. yones. —There is no right whatever in the leg-
islation ; and we will never. accept an exemption clause
as an equivalent to our opposition to the law. It is not
to obtain relief for ourselves that we oppose the law.
It is the principle of the whole subject of the legislation
to which we object ; and an exemption clause would
not modify our objection in the least.
Senator Blair. — You differ from Dr. Lewis ?
Mr. Jones. — Yes, sir, we will never accept an ex-
emption clause, as tending in the least to modify our
opposition to the law. We as firmly and as fully deny
the right of the State to legislate upon the subject with
an exemption clause as without.
Senator Blair. — There are three times as many of
you as of his denomination ?
AN EXEMPTION CLAUSE. 119
Mr. Jones. — Yes, sir ; there are nearly thirty thou-

sand of us, and we ask for no exemption clause. We
stand wholly upon the principle of the question. There
should be no exemption from a just law. If the law is
right, it is wrong to exempt.
In 1887 Mrs. Bateham herself wrote and printed a
" Letter to Seventh-day Believers," proposing in sub-
stance that if we would help them to secure a Sunday.
law, they would exempt us from its penalties. We re-
plied then as we reply now and always. We will not
help you to put upon others what we would not have
put upon ourselves.
Senator Blair. —You object to it ?
Mr. Jones.— We object to the whole principle of the
proposed legislation. We go to the root of the matter,
and deny the right of Congress to enact it.
Senator Blair.— You say that the proposed exemp-
tion does not make it any better ?
Mr. Jones. — Not a bit ; becaiise if the rightfulness
of the legislation be admitted, then we admit that it is
the right of a majority to say that such and such a day
shall be the Sabbath or the Lord's day, and that it shall
be kept. The majorities change in civil government ;
the majority may change within a few years,—may
change, in fact, at any election, —and then the people
may say that the day which we believe should be kept
must be observed, or they may say that this day shall
not be kept. If we admit the propriety of the legisla-
tion, we must also admit the propriety of the legislation
to the effect that a certain day shall not be kept, and it
makes every man's observance of Sunday, or otherwise,
simply the football of majorities. That has been the
course of religious legislation from the formation of the
papacy onward, and that is the end of religious legisla-
tion of all kinds everywhere.
Senator Blair. — Do you not think there is a distinc-

tion between a majority in a monarchical government,
and a majority in a republican government ? In a mo-
narchical government the majority is simply one man
who has power.
Mr. Jones. — But in a republic when you throw this
subject into civil affairs, it makes a great deal of differ-
ence. Why, sir, we would object to the passage of a law
- enforcing the observance of the day which we keep, and
to accept an exemption clause would only be to contra-
dict ourselves. Allow me to illustrate this : There was
a time when we did not keep the seventh day as the
Sabbath. While we did not keep it, we had the right
not to keep it. We became convinced that we ought
to keep it ; and we are now doing so. We have the
right to, keep it. More than this, we have the right
again not to keep it if we choose not to keep it. But if,
while keeping it, we should consent to the State's as-
sumption of power to compel us to do that which we
have the right to omit if we please, we would therein
resign our freedom of religious faith and worship. If
these people would only think on this question, they
would see that they themselves cannot afford to consent
to this legislation, much less demand it. No man can
ever safely consent to legislation in favor of the form of
faith or worship which he himself professes. In so do-
ing he resigns his right to profess some other form of
faith if he should become convinced that that other form
is nearer the truth than his own. He virtually resigns
his right to think any further on the subject of religious
observances, and must thenceforth accept them ready
made from the legislative power ; that is, as the majority
may dictate. The Sunday observers may thus give
away their religious liberty if they choose ; but as for
us, we do not propose to do it. We are going to assert
and maintain our rights. And when these give theirs
EXEMPTION IS TOLERATION IN DISGUISE. 121
away, we are going to assert their right to re-assert

their rights.
Another thing : An exemption clause is only a tol-
eration clause in disguise. For us to accept it would
be but to confess that all religious- rights are summed
up in the majority, and that we are willing to accept
from them whatever religious liberty they think we
ought to have. But no such confession, sir, will we
ever make. To no such thing will we ever consent or
submit. We are Americans, sir, and citizens of the
United States, too, and we assert all the rights of
American citizens. The vocabulary of American ideas
knows no such word as "toleration." It asserts rights.
As was said by the Senate Committee on this very sub-
ject sixty years ago, so say we, —
" What other nations call religious toleration, we call
religious rights. They are not exercised by virtue of
governmental indulgence, but as rights, of which govern-
ment cannot deprive any portion of citizens, however
small. Despotic power may invade those rights, but jus-
tice still confirms them."
Nor is this all that there is to be said on this point.
There is another principle involved. If we should ac-
cept the exemption clause, it would not help the thing.
It would be exceedingly short. Suppose an exemption
clause were given. There are people who would pro-
fess to be Seventh-day Adventists for the express pur-
pose of getting a chance to open saloons or houses of
business on Sunday. Therefore in outright self-defense,
the majority would have to repeal the exemption clause.
Senator Blair. — Call Mrs. Bateham's attention to
that.
Mr. Jones. — Let me repeat it. If you give an ex-
emption clause — it has been tried — there are repre-
hensible men, saloon keepers, who know they will get
more traffic on Sunday than they can on Saturday, and
they will profess to be Seventh-day Adventists, they

will profess to be Sabbath keepers. You cannot " go
behind the returns," you cannot look into the heart, you
cannot investigate the intention, to see whether they
are genuine in their profession or not. They will pro-
fess to be Sabbath keepers, and then they will open
their saloons on Sunday. Then in outright self-defense,
to make your position effective, you will have to repeal
that exemption clause. It will last but a little while.
Senator Blair. — I agree with you there.
Mr. zones. — For that reason these people cannot
afford to offer an exemption clause ; and for the reason
that it puts the majority in the power of our conscience,
we deny the right to do anything of the kind. I ask
the organizations represented here to think of this after
this hearing is over. It will bear all the investigation
they'choose to give it.
Senator Blair.— I should like to call everybody's
attention to the point. If you need any legislation of
this kind, you would better ask for legislation to carry
out your purposes, and be careful that in the effort to
get the assistance of the parties against you, you do
not throw away the pith and substance of all for which
you ask.
Mr. zones. — Yes, sir, that is the point. To show
the workings of this principle, I will state that Arkansas
in 1885 had an exemption clause in its Sunday law.
That exemption clause, it was claimed, was taken ad-
vantage of by saloon keepers to keep open on Sunday.
A delegation went to the legislature of Arkansas, and
asked them to repeal the exemption clause, so that they
could shut the saloons on Sunday. The legislature did
it. If they had shut the saloons on Sunday, that would
have been all well enough. But they did not even try
it. There was not a saloon keeper arrested under that
repealed law ; there were only two men not keeping the
THE WORKINGS OF A SUNDAY LAW. 123
seventh day, who were arrested under it ; there was

not a man who did not keep the seventh day fined
under it ; but there were Seventh-day Baptists and
some Seventh-day Adventists, poor almost as Job's
turkey, who were prosecuted and fined. One man had
his only horse taken from him, and his cow, and at last
his brethren contributed money to save him from jail.
Such men were prosecuted time and again ; and the
lawyers of the State, under the leadership of Senator
Crockett, succeeded in carrying through the legislature,
against the persistent opposition of the church mana-
gers, a bill restoring the exemption clause, to save these
poor, innocent people from the persecution that was
being carried on.*
Senator Blair. —I am glad you put in that fact, be-
cause it is something that happened.
Mr. yones.— I ask leave to read the statement made
in the Arkansas Legislature by Senator Crockett, upon
that very subject : —
" Let me, sir, illustrate the operation of the present
law by one or two examples. A Mr. Swearigen came
from a Northern State and settled on a farm in
County. His farm was four miles from town, and far
away from any house of religious worship. He was a
member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and,
after having sacredly observed the Sabbath of his peo-
ple (Saturday) by abstaining from all secular work, he
and his son, a lad of seventeen, on the first day of the
week went quietly about their usual avocations. They
disturbed no one—interfered with the rights of no one.
But they were observed, and reported to the Grand Jury,
indicted, arrested, tried, convicted, fined, and having no
* Yet in the very next legislature, that of 1889, the church managers
tried their best again to repeal the exemption clause. It was then discovered
that they had elected men to the legislature pledged to repeal the exemption
clause. The bill passed the Senate, but was killed in the House. This
proves my position, that there is no liberty in an exemption clause.
money to pay the fine, these moral, Christian citizens

of Arkansas. were dragged to the county jail and im-
prisoned like felons for twenty-five days—and for what ?
— For daring, in this so-called land of liberty, in the
year of our Lord 1887, to worship God.
" Was this the end of the story ?— Alas, no, sir !
They were turned out ; and the old man's only horse,
his sole reliance to make bread for his children, was
levied on to pay the fine and costs, amounting to thirty-
eight dollars. The horse sold at auction for twenty-
seven dollars. A few days afterward the sheriff came
again, and demanded thirty-six dollars, eleven dollars
balance due on fine and costs, and twenty-five dollars
for board for himself and son while in jail. And when
the poor old man — a Christian, mind you — told him
with tears that he had no money, he promptly levied
on,his only cow, but was persuaded to accept bond, and
the amount was paid by contributions from his friends
of the same faith. Sir, my heart swells to bursting with
indignation as I repeat to you the infamous story.
"another, and I am done. Sir, I beg you and these
senators to believe that these are neither fancy nor ex-
aggerated sketches. fixtyqaLs ago a young man,
newly married. came to — County from Ohio. He
and his wife were Seventh-day Baptists. The young
girl had left father and mother, brothers and sisters, and
all the dear friends of her childhood, to follow her young
husband to Arkansas—to , them the land of promise.
The light of love sparkled in her bright young eyes.
The roses of health were upon her cheeks, and her sil-
very laugh was sweet music, of which her young hus-
band never wearied. They purchased a little farm, and
soon by tireless industry and frugal thrift, their home
blossomed like a rose in the wilderness. After awhile
a fair young babe came to them to brighten the sun-
shine, and sweeten the bird songs. They were happy
in each other's affection and their love for the little one.
For them ' all things worked together for good ; ' for ill
their humble. trusting way, they worshiked God and
loved their fellow-men.
"Two years ago the law under which their prosper-
ity and happiness had had its growth was repealed I
THE WORKINGS OF' A SUNDAY LAW. 125
Accursed be the day which brought such a foul blot

upon our State's fair fame ! A change, sudden, cold, and
blasting as an Arctic storm, came over their lives, and
pitilessly withered all their bright flowers of hope.
Under this repeal, persecution lifted its ugly, venomous
head. The hero of my sad story was observed by an
envious, jealous neighbor, quietly working, as he believed
God had commanded him, on Sunday. He was reported
to that Inquisitorial relic of barbarism, the Grand Jury,
indicted, tried, convicted, and thrown into jail because
his conscience-would not let him pay the fine.
" Week after week dragged its slow length along.
Day after day the young wife, with baby in her arms,
watched at the gate for his coming, and, like Tenny-
son's Marianna —
" She only said : " My life is dreary —
He cometh not," she said.
She said : " I am aweary — aweary —
I would that I were dead."'
" Then baby sickened and died ; the light in the
young wife's eyes faded out in tears ; her silvery laugh
changed to low, wailing sobs. Pale-faced Misery snatched
the roses from her cheeks, and planted in their stead
her own pallid hue. Sir, how can I go on ? At length
the cruel law was appeased, and this inoffensive citizen
(except that he had loved God and sought to obey him)
was released from prison, and dragged his weary feet to
the happy home he had left a few short weeks before.
He met his neighbors at the gate bearing a coffin. He
asked no questions, his heart told him all. No, not all !
He knew not — he could never know — of her lonely
hours, of her bitter tears, of the weary watching and
waiting, of the appeals to God,— that God for whom she
had suffered so much,—for help in the hour of her extrem-
ity, of baby's sickness and death. He could not know
of these. But he went with them to the quiet country
burial-place, and saw beside the open grave a little
mound with dirt freshly heaped upon it, and then he
knew that God had taken both his heart's idols, and he
was left alone. His grief was too deep for tears. With
staring eyes, he saw them lower the body of his young
wife into the grave. He heard the clods rattle upon the
coffin, and it seemed as if they were falling upon his
heart. The work was done, and they left him with his
dead ; and then he threw himself down between the
graves, with an arm across each little mound, and the
tears came in torrents, and kept his heart from breaking.
And then he sobbed his broken farewell to his darlings,
and left Arkansas forever,— left it, sir, as hundreds of
others are preparing to leave, if this General Assembly
fails to restore to them the protection of their rights
under the Constitution, national and State.
" On next Monday, at Malvern, six as honest, good,
and virtuous citizens as live in Arkansas, are to be tried
as criminals for daring to worship God in accordance
with the dictates of their own consciences ; for exer-
cising a right which this Government, under the Con-
stitution, has no power to abridge. Sir, I plead, in the
name of justice, in the name of our republican institu-
tions, in the name of these inoffensive, God-fearing,
God-serving people, our fellow-citizens, and last, sir, in
the name of Arkansas, I plead that this bill may pass,
and this one foul blot be wiped from the escutcheon of
our glorious commonwealth."
Arkansas was not alone in this, however, though it
was worse there than anywhere else. I myself, with
other brethren in California, had to send hundreds of
dollars into Tennessee, to support the families of the
brethren of our own faith there, while the husbands and
fathers who made the money for their support were in
jail because they chose to work for their families on Sun-
day, and make bread for them after having kept the
Sabbath according to their conscience. That has been
done, Mr. Chairman, in these United States. That is
the care these people have for the laboring man.
Senator Blair. — You reason from that that there
should be no Sunday law whatever ?
Mr. Jones. — If you allow a Sunday law, you must
allow it to any extent. It must be enforced. All they
THE 'WORKINGS OF A SUNDAY LAW. -127
did in Arkansas was to enforce the law, simply as in the

Roman empire they enforced the law, and put Christians
to death. They simply enforced the law, but the law
was wrong. Any condition of the law that will allow
such things as that is a wrong condition of the law.
Senator Blair. — This bill proposes that work must
not be done to the disturbance of others. This work
was done to the disturbance of others.
Mr. yones.— I know that this bill for a national Sun-
day law proposes that work must not be done " to the
disturbance of others," and in that very phrase lies one
of its worst features. The bill declares that no person
shall do any work, or "engage in any play, game, or
amusement, or recreation, to the disturbance of others,
on the first day of the week, commonly known as the
Lord's day, or during any part thereof." This leaves it
entirely with the other man to say whether that which
I do disturbs him ; and that is only to make every man's
action on Sunday subject to the whim or caprice of his
neighbor. And everybody knows that it requires a very
slight thing to disturb one who has a spite or prejudice
against you. At the Illinois State Sunday-law conven-
tion last month (Nov. 20, 21), Dr. R. 0. Post, of Spring-
field, made a speech on the subject of " Sunday Recrea-
tion," in which he declared as the sum of his whole
speech that, —
" There is no kind of recreation that is proper or
profitable on Sunday, outside of the home or the sanct-
uary."
Only let such a law as is embodied in this bill be-
come of force where R. 0. Post, D. D., is, and any kind of
recreation gutside of the home or the sanctuary would
be sure to disturb him, and the one engaged in the rec-
reation could be arrested and prosecuted. But it may
be argued that no judge or jury would uphold any
such prosecution. That is not at all certain, as we shall
yet see ; but whether or not it is so, it is certain that if

your neighbor should say that what you did disturbed
him, under such a law as that he could have you ar-
rested, and put to the inconvenience and expense of
defending yourself before the court. In 1887, the city
of San Francisco, Cal., had an ordinance on another
subject that embodied the very principle of this clause
of this Sunday bill. It reads thus : —
" No person shall in any place indulge in conduct
having a tendency to annoy persons passing or being
upon the public highway, or upon adjacent premises."
It is easy to see that the principle of this ordinance
is identical with that of the clause in the first section of
this bill, which forbids anything " to the disturbance of
others."
While that San Francisco ordinance was in force, a
man by the name of Ferdinand Pape was distributing
some circulars on the street, which not only had a ten-
dency to annoy, but actually " annoyed " a business
man across the street. Pape was arrested. He applied
to the Superior Court for a writ of habeas corpus, claim-
ing that the offense charged against him did not consti-
tute a crime, and that the ordinance making such action
an offense was invalid and void, because it was unrea-
sonable and uncertain. The report of the case says :—
" The writ was made returnable before Judge Sul-
livan, and argued by Henry Hutton in behalf of the im-
prisoned offender. Disposing of the question, the Judge
gave quite a lengthy written opinion, in which he passed
a somewhat severe criticism upon the absurdity of the
contested ordinance, and discharged Pape from custody.
Said the Judge : — ••
" If the order be law, enforceable by fine and impris-
onment, it is a crime to indulge in any conduct, how-
ever innocent and harmless in itself, and however un-
consciously done, which has a tendency to annoy other
SUBVERSION OF LIBERTY. 129
persons. . . . Instances might be multiplied indefinitely

in which the most harmless and inoffensive conduct has
a tendency to annoy others. If the language of the or-
dinance defines a criminal offense, it sets a very severe
penalty of liberty and property upon conduct lacking
in the essential element of criminality.
" ' But it may be said that courts and juries will not
use the instrumentality of this language to set the seal
of condemnation on unoffending citizens, and to unjustly
deprive them of their liberty and brand them as crim-
inals. The law countenances no such dangerous doc-
trine, countenances no principle so subversive of liberty;
as that the life or liberty of a subject should be made to
depend upon the whim or caprice of judge or jury, by
exercising a discretion in determining that certain con-
duct does or does not come within the inhibition of a
criminal action. The law should be engraved so plainly
and distinctly on the legislative tables that it can be
discerned alike by all subjects of the commonwealth,
whether judge upon the bench, juror in the box, or pris-
oner at the bar. Any condition of the law which allows
the test of criminality to depend on the whim or caprice
of judge or juror, savors of tyranny. The language em-
ployed is broad enough to cover conduct which is clearly
within the Constitutional rights of the citizen. It des-
ignates no border-line which divides the criminal from
the non-criminal conduct. Its terms are too vague and
uncertain to lay down a rule of conduct. In my judg-
ment, the portion of the ordinance here involved is un-
certain and unreasonable.' "
This decision applies with full force to this proposed
national Sunday law. Under this law, all that would be
necessary to subject any person to a criminal prosecu-
tion, would be for him to engage in any sort of play,
game, amusement, or recreation on Sunday ; because
the National Reformers are as much in favor of this Sun-
day law as is anybody else, and there.are many of those
rigid National Reformers who would be very much " dis-
turbed " by any amusement or recreation indulged in on
9
Sunday, however innocent it might be in itself. And it

is left entirely to the whim or caprice of the " disturbed "
one, or of the judge or jury, to say whether the action
really has or has not disturbed him.
The California decision is, that such a statute "sets
a very severe penalty of liberty and property upon con-
duct lacking in the essential element of criminality."
California courts "countenance no such dangerous doc-
trine, countenance no principle so subversive of liberty,"
or which so " savors of tyranny," as that which is em-
bodied in these words of this Sunday bill.
Nor is this confined to this particular section ; the
same principle is, found in Section 5. This section pro-
vides that if any person works for any other person on
Sunday, and receives payment for it at any time, then
any person in the wide world, except the parties con-
cerned, can enter suit, and recover the money so paid.
If you work for me on Sunday, and I pay you for it,
then the first man that finds it out can sue you and get
the money. That is what the bill says. When wages
are paid for Sunday work, " whether in advance or
otherwise, the same'may be recovered back by whoever
shall first sue for the same." Whoever is a universal
term. Therefore, this bill deliberately proposes that
when any man who is subject to the exclusive jurisdic-
tion of the United States, receives payment for work
done on Sunday, except for work of necessity or mercy,
he may be sued for that money by whoever first learns
that he has received it, and that person shall get the
money.
So much for this bill as it reads. Now, as to the
work for which the Seventh-day observers of Arkansas-
were prosecuted. It was not to the disturbance of
others. Let me state some of the facts, the authentic
record of which I have, but it is too voluminous to pre-
sent in detail,
THE. WORKINGS OF A SUNDAY LAW.' 131
With two exceptions, all the arrests and prosecutions

were of people who observed the seventh day of the
week as the Sabbath. And in these two exceptions,
those who were held for trial were held without bail, —
simply on their own recognizance, —and although the
testimony was direct and positive, the jury " agreed to
disagree," and the cases were both dismissed ; while in
every case of a Seventh-day Adventist, the least bail
that was accepted was $110 ; the most of them were
held under bonds for $250, and some for as high as
$500. There was not a single case dismissed, and in all
the cases the complaint was never made that what was
done had disturbed the worship or the rest of any one.
But the indictments were all for the crime of "Sabbath-
breaking" by the performance of labor on Sunday.
The statute of Arkansas at that time ran thus :—
" SECTION 1883. Every person who shall on the Sab-
bath, or Sunday, be found laboring, or shall compel his
apprentice or servant to labor or perform service other
than customary household duties of daily necessity,
comfort, or charity, on conviction thereof shall be fined
one dollar for each separate offense.
" SEC. 1884. Every apprentice or servant compelled
to labor on Sunday shall be deemed a separate Offense
of the master.
" SEC. 1885. The provision of this act shall not ap-
ply to steamboats and other vessels navigating the
waters of. the State, nor such manufacturing establish-
ments as require to be kept in continual operation."
In the case of Mr. Swearingen, mentioned by Sena-
tor Crockett, the conviction was upon the testimony
of a witness who swore that the work for which he was
convicted was done on .a day which proved to be seven-
teen days before the la.w was enacted, thus by its enforce-
ment making the law ex post facto. The Constitution
of the United States forbids the making of ex post facto
laws. But when a law not being cx post facto in itself,
is made so by its enforcement, it is time that something

was being done to enlighten courts and juries upon that
subject, even though it should be by an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, providing that
no law not being ex post facto in itself shall be made so
by its enforcement. Then, on the other hand, several
cases were tried, and the men convicted and fined after
Me law was repealed, though for work done before.
In almost every case the informer, the prosecuting
witness, or perhaps both, were men who were doing
work or business on the same day, and sometimes with
the very persons accused ; yet the man who kept the
seventh day was convicted in every instance, while the
man who did not keep the seventh day, but did work
or business with the man who did, was left entirely un-
molested, and his evidence was accepted in Court to
convict the other man. I give some instances : —
First, a man by the name of Millard Courtney, who
was the prosecuting witness against two men, Arm-
strong and Elmore, had taken a man with him to where
these men were working, and there they made a con-
tract for roofing a school-house ; and yet Courtney's
evidence convicted these two men of Sabbath-breaking
at the very time he was doing business with them.
Second, J. L. Shockey was convicted upon the testi-
mony of a man by the name of Hammond, who went to
him on Sunday where he was at work, and bargained
with him for a Plymouth Rock rooster.
Third, J. L. James, who worked in the rain for noth-
ing on Sunday that a poor widow, a member of another
church, might be sheltered, was convicted of Sabbath
breaking upon the evidence of a man who carried wood
and chopped it up that same day within seven rods of
the man who was convicted by his testimony.
Fourth, one La Fever and his wife went to Allen
Meeks's house on Sunday to visit, They found Meeks
THE WORKINGS OF A SUNDAY LAW. 133
planting potatoes. Meeks stopped planting potatoes,

and spent the rest of the day visiting with them ; and
yet Meeks was convicted of Sabbath-breaking and
fined upon the evidence of La Fever.
Fifth, the second case of Mr. Meeks. Riley Warren
went to his house on Sunday, to see him about hiring
a teacher for the public school. In the social, neigh-
borly conversation that passed between them, Meeks
incidentally mentioned that he had mended his wagon-
brake that morning ; and yet he was convicted of Sab-
bath-breaking upon the evidence of that same Riley
Warren. Meeks was thus virtually compelled to be a
witness against himself,— clearly another violation of
both the State and United States Constitution.
Sixth, Mr. Reeves's boys were hauling wood on Sun-
day. In the timber where they got the wood, they
met another boy, a Seventh-day Adventist, John A.
Meeks, hunting squirrels. They joined him in the
hunt, scaring the squirrels around the trees so he could
shoot them. Then the squirrels were divided between
the Meeks boy and the Reeves boys. Then the Meeks
boy was indicted, prosecuted, and convicted of Sab-
bath-breaking upon the evidence of the father of those
boys who were hauling wood, and who helped to kill
the squirrels.
Seventh, James M. Pool, for hoeing in his garden on
Sunday, was convicted of Sabbath-breaking, on the
evidence of a " sanctified " church member who had
gone to Pool's house on Sunday to buy tobacco.
Allow me .to mention the methods of prosecution.'
In the case of Scoles, J. A. Armstrong was' called
before the Grand Jury. After repeated answers to
questions in regard to work done on Sunday by dif-
ferent parties in several different lines of business and
traffic, he was asked the direct question whether he
knew of any Seventh-day Adventists who worked on
134 1111;: NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW.
Sunday, and when in the nature of the case he

answered in the affirmative, every one of the Seventh-
day Adventists whom he named was indicted, and not
one of any other class or trade.
In the second case of James A. Armstrong ; he was
arrested at the instance of the mayor. When asked for
the affidavit upon which Armstrong was arrested, the
mayor said that A. J. Vaughn had called his attention to
Armstrong's working, and had said, " Now see that you
do your duty," yet Vaughn testified under oath that he
did not see Armstrong at all on the day referred to.
Armstrong was not only arrested at the instance of the
mayor, but he was also tried before the mayor, who
acted as Justice of the Peace. And when Vaughn tes-
tified that he had not seen Armstrong at all on the day
referred to. this made the mayor, virtually, both prose-
cuting witness and judge ; and the questions which he
asked show that that was precisely his position, and his
own view of the case. The question which he asked to
each of the first two witnesses was, " What do you know
about Mr. Armstrong's working on Sunday, June 21 ?"
This question assumes all that was expected •to be
proved on the trial.
This is enough to show the workings of such a Sun-
day law as is embodied in this Senate bill. There were
many other cases, every one in the same line. But
throughout the whole list of cases, it is only the record
of how people who were performing honest labor on
their own premises in a way .in which it was impossible
to do harm to any soul on earth, were indicted, prose-
cuted,'and convicted upon the evidence of men who, if
there were any wrong involved in the case at all, were
more guilty than they. If religious persecution could
possibly be more clearly demonstrated than it is in this
thing, we hope never to see an illustration of it.
It may be asked, Why was not an appeal taken ?
An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the
LtGISIATIVt POWER NOT oivINIPOTENT. 125
State, in the first case that was tried. The judgment

of the lower Court was confirmed in an opinion closing
with these words : —
"The appellant's argument, then, is reduced to this :
That because he conscientiously believes he is per-
mitted by the law of God to labor on Sunday, he may
violate with impunity the statute declaring it illegal to
do so ; but a man's religious belief cannot be accepted
as a justification for his committing an overt act made
criminal by the law of the land. If the law operates
harshly, as laws sometimes do, the remedy is in the
hands of the legislature. It is not the province of the
judiciary to pass upon the wisdom or policy of legisla-
tion. That is for the members of the legislative depart-
ment ; and the only appeal from their determination is
to the constituency."
This decision of the Supreme Court is of the same
piece with the prosecutions and judicial processes
throughout. It gives to the legislature all the omnipo-
tence of the British Parliament, and in that does
away with all necessity for a Constitution. The
decision on this principle alone, .is un-American. No
legislative body in this country is framed upon the
model of the British Parliament in respect to power.
In this country, the powers of every legislature are
defined and limited by Constitutions. It is the pre-
rogative of Supreme Courts to define the meaning of
the Constitution, and to decide whether an act of the
legislature is Constitutional or not. If the act is Con-
stitutional, then it must stand, whatever the results
may be. And the Supreme Court is the body by which
the Constitutionality or the unconstitutionality of any
statute is to be discovered. But if, as this decision
declares, the legislature is omnipotent, and that which
it does must stand as law, then there is no use for a
Constitution. "One of the objects for which the
judiciary department is established, is the protection
of the Constitutional rights of the citizens."
136. THE; NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW.
So long as there is a Constitution above the legisla-

ture, which defines and limits its powers, and protects
and guards the rights of the citizens, so long it is the
province of the Supreme Court to pronounce upon the
acts of the legislature. The Supreme Court of Arkan-
sas, therefore, in this case, clearly abdicated one of the
very functions for which it was created, or else sub-
verted the Constitution of Arkansas ; and in either case,
bestowed upon the legislature the omnipotence of the
British Parliament, which is contrary to every principle
of American institutions. Nor is the State of Arkansas
an exception in this case ; for this is the usual procedure
of Supreme Courts in sustaining Sunday laws. They
cannot be sustained upon any American principle ; re-
sort has to be made in every instance, and has been with
scarcely an exception, either to the church-and-state
principles of the British Government, or to the British
principle of the omnipotence of the legislative power.
But American principles are far above and far in ad-
vance of the principles of the British Government, in
that they recognize Constitutional limitations upon the
legislative power, and countenance no union of church
and state ; consequently Sunday laws never have been,
and never can be, sustained upon American principles.
That this stricture upon the Supreme Court of Ar-
kansas is not unjust, we have the clearest proof. The
three judges who then composed the Supreme Court,
were all members of the Bar Association of the State of
Arkansas. In less than three months after this decision
was rendered, the Bar Association unanimously made a
report to the State on " law and law reform," an official
copy of which I have in my possession._ In that report,
under the heading "Sunday Laws," is the following :—
" Our statute as it stands in Mansfield's Digest, pro-

vides that ' persons who are members of any religious
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DECISION. 13'7
•
society who observe as Sabbath any other day of the
week than the Christian Sabbath, or Sunday, shall not
be subject to the penalties of this act [the Sunday law],
so that they observe one day in seven, agreeably to the
faith and practice of their church or society.' — Mans.
Dig., sec. 1886.
" This statute had been in force from the time of the
organization of the State government ; but it was un-
fortunately repealed ,by act of March 3,• 1885.— Acts
1885, p. n.
" While the Jews adhere, of course, to the letter of
the original command to remember the seventh day of
the week, there is also in the State a small but respect-
able body of Christians who consistently believe that
the seventh day is the proper day to be kept sacred ;
and in the case of Scoles vs. State, our Supreme Court
was compelled to affirm a judgment against a member
of one of these churches, for worshiping God according
to the dictates of his own conscience, supported, as he
supposed, by good theological arguments. It is very
evident that the system now in force, savoring, as it
does, very much of religious persecution, is a relic of
the Middle Ages, when it was thought that men could
be made orthodox by an act of parliament. Even in
Massachusetts, where Sabbatarian laws have always
been enforced with unusual vigor, exceptions are made
in favor of persons who religiously observe any other
day in the place of Sunday. We think that the law as
it stood in Mansfield's Digest, should be restored, with
such an amendment as would prevent the sale of spirits
on Sunday, as that was probably the object of repeal-
ing the above section."
Now the Arkansas Constitution says : —
" All men have a natural and indefeasible right to .
worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their
own consciences ; no man can of right be compelled to
attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to
maintain any ministry, against his consent. No human
authority can, in any case or manner whatsoever, con-
trol or interfere with the right of conscience ; and no
138 TNg NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW.
preference shall ever be given by law to any religious

establishment, denomination, or mode of worship, above
any other." -
This report of the Bar Association says, "In the case
of Scoles vs. State, our Supreme Court was compelled to
affirm a judgment against a member of one of these
churches, for worshiping God according to the dictates
of his own conscience."
The members of the Supreme Court being members
of the Bar Association, in that report it is confessed that
they confirmed a judgment against a nian for doing that
which the Constitution explicitly declares all men have
a natural and indefeasible right to do.
Senator Blair. — Then if they had a law like this,
they were wrongly convicted under the law, just as in-
nocent men are sometimes hung ; but you cannot reason
that there should be no law against murder because in-
nocent men are sometimes executed. It is a fault in the
administration of the law. You cannot reason from
that that there should be no law.
Mr. Jones. —If there had been arrests of other people
for working on Sunday, in anything like the numbers
that there were of seventh-day observers, and the law
had been enforced upon all alike, then the iniquity
would not have been so apparent ; or if those who were
not seventh-day observers, and who were arrested, had
been convicted, even then the case would not have been
so clearly one of persecution. But when in all the rec-
ord of the whole two years' existence of the law in this
form, there was not a solitary saloon keeper arrested,
there was not a person who did not observe the seventh
day arrested, with the two exceptions named, then there
could be no clearer demonstration that the law was used
only as a means to vent religious spite against a class
of citizens guiltless of any crime, but only of professing
a religion different from that of the majority.
THE PHARISEES JUSTIFIED TIIEMSELVES. 139
The fact of the matter is, — and the whole history of

these proceedings proves it, — that from beginning to
end these prosecutions were only the manifestation of
that persecuting, intolerant spirit that will always make
itself felt when any class of religionists can control the
civil power. The information upon which the indict-
ments were found, was treacherously given, and in the
very spirit of the Inquisition. The indictment itself
is a travesty of legal form, and a libel upon justice.
The principle was more worthy of the Dark Ages than
of any civiliied nation or modern time ; and the Su-
preme Court decision that confirmed the convictions,
is one which is contrary to the first principles of Con-
stitutional law or Constitutional compacts.
And if Congress should lend its sanction to religious
legislation to the extent of passing this national Sun-
day bill, now under consideration, and its principles
should be made of force in all the States, the history of
Arkansas from 1885-87 would be repeated through
the whole extent of the nation. This I can prove, at
least so far as the intention goes of those who are ac-
tively in favor of it. Rev. D. Mc Allister is one of the
principal men of the National Reform Association.
That Association and the Woman's Christian Temper-
ance Union held a joint convention at Lakeside, Ohio,
in July, 1887 ; and speaking on the subject of a national
Sunday law, Dr. Mc Allister said : --
"Let a man be what he may,— Jew, seventh-day ob-

server of some other denomination, or those who do not
believe in the Christian Sabbath, — let the law apply to
every one, that there shall be no public desecration of
the first day of the week, the Christian 'Sabbath, the
day of rest for the nation. They may hold any other
day of the week as sacred, and observe it ; but that day
which is the one day in seven for the nation at large, let
that not be publicly desecrated by any one, by officer
140 THD NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW.
in the Government, or by private citizen, high or low,

rich or poor."
Then some one stated from the audience that —
" There is a law in the State of Arkansas enforcing
Sunday observance upon the people, and the result has
been that many good persons have not only been im-
prisoned, but have lost their property, and even their
lives."
To which Mr. Mc Allister coolly replied :—
" It is better that a few should suffer, than that the
whole nation should lose its Sabbath."
This argument is identical with that by which the
Pharisees in Christ's day justified themselves in killing
him. It was said :—
"It is expedient for us that one man should die. for
the people, and that the whole nation perish not." John
11 : 50.
And then says the record :—
"Then from that day forth they took counsel to-
gether for to put him to death." Verse 53.
It is because of these principles, unblushingly avowed
by the very men who stand in the lead in the effort to
secure the enactment of this national Sunday law ; and
because of the practical effect of such a law in Arkansas
and Tennessee, and to some extent in Pennsylvania, —
it is because of these things that we say to you, gentle-
men of the United States Senate, you cannot afford to
give to these men the power which they seek in the en-
actment of this proposed Sunday law. The speech of
Senator Crockett's, which I have read, was made in the
legislature of Arkansas, when he was pleading for the
restoration of that exemption clause, — when he was
pleading for toleration, in fact.
SUNDAY LAWS INVADE INALIENABLE RIGHTS. 141
Senator Blair. — Do you know whether this young

man had money or friends ?
Mr. ,ones. —Dr. Lewis, can you certify whether he
had money ?
Dr. Lewis.— The case was never reported to other
churches for relief. I do not know as to his personal
estate.
Senator Blair. — Do you not think it was a peculiar
man who would allow his child to be killed and his wife
to starve ?
Dr. Lewis. —The case was not reported to our
churches in the North.
Mr. zones. — About that peculiarity I will say that
John Bunyan stayed twelve years in Bedford jail when
he could have got out by simply saying the word "yes,"
and agreeing that he would not preach.
Senator Blair. — It was a very different thing to be
called on to say that he would abstain from the perform-
ance of a great duty in his church. He preached the
gospel, and he would not agree not to preach the gospel.
But here is a man who lets his wife and child die rather
than pay twenty-five or fifty dollars and get out, and
have an opportunity to go to work for them.
Mr. ,ones. —What kind of law is that which puts
a man upon his conscience to choose between his wife
and child and paying a fine of twenty-five or fifty dol-
lars ? But suppose he had paid the fine, and got out and
gone to work again, how long could he have worked ?
When the next Sunday came round, it was his duty to
his wife and child to work for their support. Is he to go
to work on Sunday, and go through the course of pros-
ecution again, and again pay a fine of twenty-five or
fifty dollars ? How long could this be kept up ? There
are not many poor farmers who can clear from twenty-
five to fifty dollars every week above all expenses, to be
devoted to paying regular fines for the privilege of fol-
lowing their honest occupation on their own premises.

But it will be said, Let him not work on Sunday, then
he would not have to pay a fine." Well, if he con-
sents to do no work on Sunday, he consents to be robbed
of one-sixth of his time, which he honestly owes to the
support of his wife and child. For to rob him of one-
sixth of his time is precisely what the State does in such
a case ; and it is either confiscation outright, or confisca-
tion under the guise of a fine imposed as punishment for
his refusing to allow himself to be robbed of one-sixth of
his time. Either this, or else he must give up his right
to worship God according to the dictates of his own con-
science and the word of God, and so surrender his rights
of conscience altogether. It comes to this, therefore,
that Sunday laws are a direct invasion of the rights of
conscience.
More than this, Sunday laws are a direct invasion
not only of the Constitutional right, but the inalienable
right, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property.
I here adopt the language of the Supreme Court of
California, — language which can never be successfully
controverted : —
" The right to protect and possess property is not

more clearly protected by the Constitution than the
right to acquire. The right to acquire must include
the right to use the proper means to attain the end.
The right itself would be impotent without the power
to use the necessary incidents. If the legislature have
the authority to appoint a time of compulsory rest, . . .
it is without limit, and may extend to the prohibition
of all occupations at all times.'. . . For the Con-
stitution to declare a right inalienable and at the same
time leave the legislature unlimited power over it, would
be a contradiction in terms, an idle provision, proving
that a Constitution was a mere parchment barrier, in-
sufficient to protect the citizen, delusive and visionary,
and the practical result of which would be to destroy,
not conserve, the rights which they may assume to pro-

tect. The legislature, therefore, cannot prohibit the
proper use of the means of acquiring property, except
the peace and safety of the State require it."— Ex parte
Newman, 9 Cal., pp. 517, 510.
But does the peace and safety of the State require
it in any such case as is here involved ? Can it ever be
against the peace and safety of the State for any man
to follow his honest, legitimate, and even laudable
occupations ? It is against the peace and safety of the
State to prohibit it. For, as I have before conclusively
proved, for the State to do so is for it to put honest oc-
cupations in the catalogue of crimes ; to put peaceable
and industrious citizens upon a level with criminals ;
and to put a premium upon idleness and recklessness.
It is certainly against the peace and safety of any
State to do any such thing. Therefore it is demon-
strated that Sunday laws are an invasion of the in-
alienable right of acquiring and possessing property,
and for that man in Arkansas to have obeyed that law,
would have been to surrender his inalienable right.
Once more : As the right to acquire property in-
cludes the right to use the proper means to attain that
end, and as such a law deprives a man of the use of
such means during one-sixth of his time, it follows that
it is a violation of that provision of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution, which
declares that " no State shall deprive any citizen of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law."
All this, sir, is involved in the question as to whether
that man shall recognize the law to such an extent as
even to pay the fine. If he does, then it follows inevit-
ably that all his property shall go to pay fines, or else
he must choose between yielding his rights of con-
science, and allowing one-sixth of his time to be con-
fiscated, and in that a certain proportion of property ;
because to the industrious citizen, time is property.

But if the State by a Sunday law or by any other
means, may confiscate a part, it may confiscate all.
Where, then, shall resistance to oppression begin ?—I
say, At the very first appearance of it. Under cover of
the word "loan" Charles I. undertook to confiscate a
small sum of money from each of the property owners
of England. John Hampden's share was about seven
dollars and seventy-five cents. He was a rich man, but
he refused to pay it ; and his refusal to pay that paltry
sum led to all England's being plunged into confusion
and civil war : the king lost his head, Hampden him-
self lost his life, and all this rather than to pay the
insignificant sum of seven dollars and seventy-five
cents !— less than one-third of the fine imposed upon
this man for refusing to assent to the confiscation of
one-sixth of his property. But John Hampden's re-
fusal to pay that money established the Constitutional
principle that every fnan has the inalienable right to
acquire, possess, and protect property—a right which
was invaded in this case. Upon this principle alone
that man was entirely justified in refusing to pay the
fine imposed by that Sunday law. But as there was
also involved the inalienable right of conscience, he was
doubly justified in refusing to obey the law or to recog-
nize the principle.
Senator Blair. — Suppose he was a guilty man.
Suppose he did not believe it was an offense to steal,
and that he conscientiously thought that he could take
goods from another in a certain way. He had been con-
victed under the law, and was under the penalty of
paying twenty-five dollars' fine. Is he to put his right
of conscience against the demands of wife and child,
and against the judgment of the community, and the
State in which he lives, and to which he owes all the
rights to the enjoyment of property, and everything
else he has ? In this case a man saw all this evil done
rather than pay twenty-five or fifty dollars, and he says
he did that by reason of his conscience.
Mr. Jones.— The cases are not parallel at all, unless
indeed you count it as much of a crime for a man to
follow his honest occupation as it is for him to steal.
This, however, we have demonstrated is the very thing
that Sunday laws do. But we forever protest against
honest industry's being put upon a level with thieving.
The man who steals takes the property of others
without compensation and without regard to the ques-
tion, of right. If, then, the State takes from him prop-
erty or time without compensation, he cannot complain
of injustice. But in the case of the man who works on
Sunday, he invades no man's right in any degree ; he
takes no man's property or his time in any way, much
less does he take it without compensation. For the
State to punish the thief, is just. For the State to pun-
ish the industrious citizen, is pre-eminently unjust.
But aside from all this, did you ever hear of a man
whose conscience taught him that it was right to steal,
that it was a conscientious conviction to steal ?
Senator Blair. -- I have heard of a great many in-
stances where an individual confessed that he had con-
scientiously violated the law, yet he was punished.
Mr. Yones.— Precisely ; and the Christians were put
to death under the Roman empire for violating the law.
Senator Blair. — But that does not answer my ques-
tion, and it is not necessary that it should be answered.
Mr. yones.— It is right for any man to violate any
law that invades his Constitutional rights ; and it is
his right conscientiously to violate any law that invades
the rights of conscience. God declares the man inno-
cent who violates the law that interferes with man's
relationship to God — the law that invades the rights of
conscience. See cases "The King vs. Shadrach, Me-
m
shach,,and Abed-nego ; " and " The State vs. Daniel/'

reported in Daniel, chapters 3 and 6.
The end of the Arkansas case, as reported by Sen-
ator Crockett, was that the poor man lost both his wife
and his child.
Senator Blair. —What became of him ?
Mr. Jones.— He left the State.
Senator Blair.— I should think he ought to leave it.
Mr. Jones.— So do I, sir. But what can be said of
freedom any more in this country, when such things can
be ? That is also true of six other men who followed
the dictates of their own consciences, — as good, honest,
virtuous citizens as lived in Arkansas.
Senator Blair. — There is a good deal of humbug
about the dictates of one's own conscience. If a man
is to set up his conscience against the obligations to do
what is right and to perform his duty toward society,
an unintelligent and uninformed conscience of that kind
might be allowed to destroy all society. It is not con-
science always.
Mr. Jones. — I beg your pardon, sir. The rights of
conscience are eternally sacred. There is no conscience
in regard to the State, however ; conscience has to do
with God, and with what he has commanded ; and a
man reads in the Bible what God commands. I here
adopt the words of the present Associate-Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States, Hon. Stanley
Matthews, in his speech in the case of the Cincinnati
School Board vs. Minor et al. He says :—
" We may call the eccentricities of conscience, vaga-

ries, if we please ; but in matters of religious concern
we have no right to disregard or despise them, no mat-
ter how trivial and, absurd- we may conceive them to be.
In the days of the early Christian martyrs, the Roman
lictors and soldiers despised and ridiculed the fanaticism
that refused the trifling conformity of a pinch of incense
* EARTHLY GOVERNMENT CIVIL, NOT MORAL. 141
upon the altar, erected to the Csar that arrogated to

himself the title and honor of `divine,' or of a heathen
statue. History is filled with the record of bloody sac-
rifices which holy men who feared God' rather than men,
have not withheld, on account of what seemed to cruel
persecutors but trifling observances and concessions.
. . . Conscience, if your honors please, is a tender thing,
and tenderly to be regarded ; and in the same propor-
tion in which a man treasures his own moral integrity,
—sets up the light of conscience within him as the
glory of God shining in him to discover to him the
truth,— so ought he to regard the conscience of every
other man, and apply the cardinal maxim of Christian
life and practice, ' Whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so unto them."
Senator Blair. — Should those who conscientiously
believe in free love be allowed to indulge in it ?
Mr. Jones.— There is no point in that. Where is
there any conscientious conviction in free love ? I can-
not discovef it. There is no room for any.
Senator Blair. — But there must be laws which pro-
hibit immorality ? •
Mr. Jones.— I ask you to define what immorality
is, and then I will answer your question.
Senator Blair. — If you do not know what the ex-
pression means, I shall not undertake to enlighten you.
Mr. Jones. — I know what it means.
Senator Blair. — Then why do you ask me to define
it ? Why do you not answer the question ?
Mr. Jones. — Because there are modified meanings
of the word which make it refer to crime. Immorality
is itself a violation of the law of God, and civil govern-
ment has no right to punish any man for a violation of
•the law of God as such. I do say, therefore, that
that which, properly speaking, is immorality, the civil
law cannot prohibit, and that it has no right to attempt
it. Morality is defined as follows :
148 THE NATiOHAE SUNDAY LAW.
" Morality: The relation of conformity or non-con-

formity to the true moral standard or rule. . . . The
conformity of an act to the divine law."
As morality is the conformity of an act to the divine
law, it is plain that morality pertains solely to God,
and with that, civil government can have nothing to do.
Again Moral law is defined as—
"The will of God, as the supreme moral ruler, con-
cerning the character and conduct of all responsible
beings ; the rule of action as obligatory on the con-
science or moral nature." " The moral law is sum-
marily contained in the decalogue, written by the
finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to
Moses on Mount Sinai."
These definitions are evidently according to Script-
ure. The Scriptures show that the ten commandments
are the law of God ; that they express the will of God ;
that they pertain to the conscience, and take cognizance
of the thoughts and intents of the heart ; and that obe-
dience to these commandments is the duty that man
owes to God. Says the Scripturd, —
" Fear God, and keep his commandments ; for this is
the whole duty of man." Eccl. 12 : 13.
And the Saviour says, —
" Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not kill ; and whosoever shall kill shall be in
danger of the judgment ; but I say unto you that who-
soever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall
be in danger of the judgment ; and whosoever shall say
to his brother, Raca [vain fellow, margin], shall be in
danger of the council ; but whosoever shall say, Thou
fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matt. 5 : 21, 22.
The apostle John, referring to the same thing, says, —
" Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer." 1
John 3 : 15.
EARTHLY GOVERNMENTS CIVIL, NOT MORAL. 149
Again, the Saviour says, —

" Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not commit adultery ; but I say unto you
that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her,
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Matt. 5 : 27, 28.
Other illustrations might be given, but these are suf-
ficient to show that obedience to the moral law is mor- .
ality ; that it pertains to the thoughts and intents of the
heart, and therefore, in the very nature of the case, lies
beyond the reach or control of the civil power. To hate
is murder ; to covet is idolatry ; to think impurely of a
woman is adultery ; — these are all equally immoral, and
violations of the moral law, but no civil government
seeks to punish for them. A man may hate his neigh-
bor all his life ; he may covet everything on earth ; he
may think impurely of every woman that he sees, —
he may keep it up all his days ; but so long as these
things are confined to his thought, the civil power can-
not touch him. It would be difficult to conceive of a
more immoral person than such a man would be ; yet
the State cannot punish him. It does not attempt to
punish him. This demonstrates again that with moral-
ity or immorality the State can have nothing to do.
But let us carry this further. Only let that man's
hatred lead him; either by word or sign, to attempt an
injury to his neighbor, and the State will punish him ;
only let his covetousness lead him to lay hands on what
is not his own, in an attempt to steal, and the State will
punish him ; only let his impure thought lead him to at-
tempt violence to any woman, and the State will punish
him. Yet bear in mind that even then the State does
not punish him for his immorality, but for his incivility.
The immorality lies in the heart, and can be measured
by God only. The State punishes no man because he is
immoral. If it did, it would have to punish as a mur,-
derer the man who hates another, and to punish as an

idolater the man who covets, and to punish as an adul-
terer the one who thinks impurely ; because according
to the true standard of morality, hatred is murder, cov-
etousness is idolatry, and impurity of thought is adul-
tery. Therefore it is clear that in fact the State pun-
ishes no man because he is immoral, but because he is
uncivil. It cannot punish immorality ; it must punish
incivility.
This distinction is shown in the very term by which
is designated State or national government ; it is called
civil government. No person but a theocrat ever thinks
of calling it moral government. The government of
God is the only moral government. God is the only
moral governor. The law of God is the only moral law.
To God alone pertains the punishment of immorality,
which is the transgression of the moral law. Govern-
ments of men are civil governments, not moral. The
laws of States and nations are civil laws, not moral. To
the authorities of civil government pertains the punish-
ment of incivility, that is, the transgression of civil law.
It is not theirs to punish immorality. That pertains
solely to the Author of the moral law and of the moral
sense, who is the sole judge of man's moral relation. All
this must be manifest to every one who will think fairly
upon the subject, and it is confirmed by the definition of
the word civil, which is this : —
" Civil: Pertaining to a city or State, or to a citizen
in his relations to his fellow-citizens, or to the State."
Thus it is made clear that we owe to Caesar (civil
government) only that which is civil, and that we owe
to God that which is moral or religious, and that to no
man, to no assembly or organization of men, does there
belong any right whatever to punish immorality. Who-
ever attempts it, usurps the prerogative of God. The
EARTHLY GOVERNMENTS CIVIL, MOT MORAL. 151
Inquisition is the inevitable logic of any claim of any

assembly of men to punish immorality ; becau.se to pun-
ish immorality, it is necessary in some way to get at the
thoughts and intents of the heart. The papacy, assert-
ing the right to compel men to be moral, and to punish
them for immorality, had the cruel courage to carry the
evil principle to its logical consequence. .In carrying
out the principle, it was found to be essential to get at
the secrets of men's hearts ; and it was found that the
diligent application of torture would wring from men,
in many cases, a full confession of the most secret coun-
sels of their hearts. Hence the Inquisition was estab-
lished as the means best adapted to secure the desired
end. So long as men grant the proposition that it is
within the province of civil government to enforce mor-
ality, it is to very little purpose that they condemn the
Inquisition ; for that tribunal is only the logical result
of the proposition.
Thus much on the subject of morality and the State
in the true and genuine sense of the word morality. But
as I said at the beginning, there is an accommodated
sense in which the word morality is used, in which it is
made to refer only to men's relations to their fellow-
men ; and with reference to this view of morality, it is
sometimes said that the civil power is to enforce moral-
ity upon a civil basis. But morality on a civil basis is
only civility, and the enforcement of morality upon a
civil basis is the enforcement of civility, and nothing
else. Without the Inquisition, it is impossible for civil ,
government ever to carry its jurisdiction beyond civil
things, or to enforce anything but civility.
But it may be asked, Does not the civil power en-
force the observance of the commandments of God,
which say, "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not
kill," "Thou shalt pot commit adultery," and "Thou
shalt not bear false witness" ? Does not the civil
power punish the violation of these commandments of

God ? I answer : The civil power does not enforce
these, nor does it punish the violation of them, as com-
mandments of God. The State does forbid murder and
theft and perjury, and some States forbid adultery, but
not as commandments of God. From time imme-
morial, governments that knew nothing about God,
have forbidden these things. If the State is to enforce
these things as the commandments of God, it will have to
take cognizance of the thoughts and intents of the
heart ; but this is not within the province of any earthly
power.
By all these evidences is established the plain, com-
mon-sense principle that to civil government pertains
only that which the term itself implies, — that which is
civil. The purpose of civil government is civil, and not
moral. Its function is to preserve order in society, and
to cause all its subjects to rest in assured safety, by
guarding them against all incivility. Morality belongs
to God ; civility, to the State. Morality must be ren-
dered to God ; civility, to the State. Immorality must
be punished — can be punished — only by the Lord.
Incivility must be punished — and no more than that
can possibly be punished — by the State.
Here, then, at the close of my remarks, we are
brought to the enunciation of the eternal principle
with which I began, upon which we now stand, and
upon which we forever expect to stand, — the principle
embodied in the United States Constitution forbidding
religious tests, and forbidding Congress to make any
law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit-
ing the free exercise thereof, — the principle estab-
lished by Jesus Christ : Render therefore UNTO CIESAR
the things which are CiESAR's; and UNTO. GOD THE
THINGS THAT ARE GOD'S.
IS THE OBJECTION IMAGINARY ? 153
REMARKS BY REV. A. H. LEWIS, D. D.

Dr. Lewis. — Mr. Chairman. The objection raised
by Prof. Jones against the exemption in favor of Sab-
bath-keepers, seems to me wholly imaginary. So far
as any Seventh-day Baptists are concerned, I know it
would be impossible for any man opening a saloon on
Sunday to present the excuse that he was a Seventh-day
Baptist. A saloon-keeping Seventh-day Baptist is an
unknown thing throughout their history of more than
two centuries. Such a man could not obtain recogni-
tion, much less church membership, in any Seventh-day
Baptist community or church. Nor do I believe from
what I know of the Seventh-day Adventists, that such a
case could occur in connection with that people. The
possibility of any such deceitful claim could easily be
guarded against by a provision requiring that in any
case of doubt the one claiming to have observed the
seventh day should be required to bring official certifi-
cafe of his relation to a Sabbath-keeping church. Such
a provision would end all difficulty.
REPLY.
Mr. zones. — Mr. Chairman. It is certainly true that,
so far, a saloon-keeping Seventh-day Baptist, or Sev-
enth-day Adventist, either, is an unknown thing. But
if Sunday laws are enforced with an exemption clause
in favor of those who keep the seventh day, this would
not be an unknown thing much longer. It is true, also,
that such a man could not obtain membership in any
Seventh-day Baptist or Seventh-day Adventist church.
But what is to prevent the saloon keepers from organ-
izing Seventh-day Baptist or Seventh-day Adventist
churches of their own, and for themselves ? What is to
prevent them, or any class of business men, from organ-
izing their own churches, electing their own officers,
and even ordaining their own pastors, and calling them-
selves Seventh-day Baptists or Seventh-day Adventists ?

There is nothing to prevent it ; unless, indeed, the State
itself shall take charge of all seventh-day churches and
doctrines, and attend to their organization and the ad-
mission of members. This is precisely what was done
before. In the days of the New England theocracy,
Massachusetts enacted a law that,—
" For the time to come, no man shall be admitted to
the freedom of this body politic, but such as are mem-
bers of some of the churches within the limits of the
same."
There were considerable numbers of men who were
not members of any of the churches, and who could
not be, because they were not Christians. These men
then took to forming themselves into churches of their
own. Then the next step for the authorities to take,
and they took it, was to enact a law that,—
" Forasmuch as it hath bene found by sad experience
that much trouble and disturbance hath happened both
to the church and civill State by the officers and mem-
bers of some churches, wch have bene gathered . . .
in an undue manner, . . . it is . . . ordered that . . .
this Court doeth not, nor will hereafter, approue of any
such companyes of men as shall henceforthe ioyne in
any pretended way of church fellowshipp, without
they shall first acquainte the magistrates and elders of
the greatr pte of the churches in this jurisdicon, with
their intencons, and have their approbacon herein."—
Emancipation of Massachusetts, pp. 28-30.
By this, gentlemen, you will see that the enactment
of this Sunday law, though the first step, will not be by
any means the last step, and that in more directions
than one. Their offer of an exemption clause is a
voluntary confession that the enforcement of the law
without one would be unjust; but if that exemption
clause be embodied and maintained, the State is.
.0
NO TICKET OF LEAVE FOR US. 155
inevitably carried beyond its proper jurisdiction ; and

if the exemption clause is retained and not maintained
in its strictness, the whole law is at once nullified. Con-
gress would better learn wisdom from this prospect,
and utterly refuse to have anything at all to do with
the subject. The whole subject is beyond the juris-
diction of the civil power, and the civil power can do
no better than to let it entirely alone.
But Dr. Lewis proposes to guard against all diffi-
culty, by "requiring" every observer of the seventh
day "to bring official certificate of his relation to a
Sabbath-keeping church." This would -not end the
difficulty ; for, as I have shown, it would inevitably
devolve upon the State to decide what was a genuine
Sabbath-keeping church. But that is not the worst
feature in this suggestion. If Dr. Lewis officially rep-
resents the Seventh-day Baptist denomination, and for
the denomination proposes thus voluntarily to put him-
self and all his people on " ticket of leave," I have no
particular objection ; that is their own business ; yet it
seems to me an extremely generous proposition, if not
an extraordinary proceeding. I say they may do this,
if they choose. But as for me and for the S2venth-day
Adventists generally, not only as Christians, but as
American citizens, we repudiate with scorn and reject
with utter contempt every principle of any such sug-
gestion. As citizens of the United States, and as
Christians, we utterly and forever refuse to put our-
selves upon " ticket of leave" by any such proposition.
NOTE. —That my argument at first was not so un-

founded nor so " wholly imaginary " as Dr. Lewis sup-
posed, has been conclusively demonstrated, even to
himself, since this hearing was 41c1. The "Pearl of
S).

•
Days" column of the New York Mail and Express, the
official organ of the American Sunday Union, in March,
1889, gave the following statement from the Plainfield
[N. J.] Times [no date] : —
" As a rule, Plainfield, N. J., is a very quiet city on
Sunday. Liquor, provision, and cigar store's are closed
by the enforcement of a city ordinance. If a resident
wants a cigar, he will either have it given to him by one
of the many pharmacists who refuse to sell on Sunday,
or he will go to the two dealers who are allowed to open
their places on Sunday because they observe Saturday
as their Sabbath. Some time ago a man of Catholic
faith, who had an eye to Sunday business in that line,
became a regular attendant at the Seventh-day Baptist
church. Eventually he asked to be admitted into the
fellowship of the church. A member of the official
board was advised that the applicant for membership
was only working for business ends. He was closely
examined by the church officers, and he finally admitted
that he wanted to open a cigar store and do business
on Sunday. The man appeared at the wrong place for
aid in carrying out his mercenary purposes. He was
not received into membership."
It looks somewhat like the " irony of fate" that this
thing should fall to the very people whom Dr. Lewis
represented, and in the very town where Dr. Lewis
himself lives.
REMARKS BY MRS. J. C. BATEHAM.
Mrs. Bateham.— I should like to say that the point
which has been made was a point carefully considered
by the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and we
saw the danger. Yet we wished to be exceedingly fair.
I consulted nine persons of different classes of Seventh-
day people, to know whether they wished such an ex-
emption, and whether they would be satisfied with what
was proposed. They represented themselves as being
in approval of some such provision as has been sug-
C. T. V. LEGISLATION. 151
gested, and we thought it could be done perhaps in

such a way as to afford them the exemption which they
desire, because they said that such an exemption is
necessary.
Senator Blair. — Let me ask you a few questions,
Mrs. Bateham, to see if the Woman's Christian Tem-
perance Union understood exactly the relation of what
they propose to do in this legislation. Here is a bill
which relates to interstate commerce, to postal work,
to the army, and to the navy. It relates to that sub-
ject-matter which is carved out of the independent, full
jurisdiction of a nation by the States, which were once
complete sovereignties, and transferred to the general
Government. The occupations I have mentioned are
all of public nature ; and to carry them on, the nation
has such an opportunity to invade the Sabbath-rest
laws of every State in such a way as to nullify them.
The nation at large is unrestrained by any Sabbath law
whatever. If it may carry on its post-office business
on the Sabbath, it may go to any extent, and it does
go already to a very great extent, and an increasingly
great extent ; so in regard to interstate commerce, and
so with the army and the navy.
Now, you go to our Seventh-day Baptist or Seventh-
day Adventist friends, for instance, and propose to in-
troduce a principle by which they can carry on the
post-office department on the Sabbath, just as com-
pletely as they see fit. In other words, you propose to
exempt them from the operation of the law so far as it
prohibits post-office work on the Sabbath. Suppose
you have a Seventh-day Baptist man for postmaster.
Suppose you fill up every post-office in the country on
the Sabbath with Seventh-day Baptist people. You
have the post-office department in operation by virtue
of this exemption, because they can do the work con-
scientiously on that day. If you limit it by saying the
158 THE STATIONAL SUNbAY LAW.
bill shall not apply to the Adventists and others, the

bill provides that already.
Mrs. Bateham.— If you remember the clause, we do
nor propose to provide that they shall be able to do
this work, but that they shall be exempt from the pen-
alty. They are not allowed to do the work, but they
are to be exempt from the penalty. Therefore, unless
they could prove that they had not done the work to
the disturbance of others, it would be impossible for
them to carry on post-office matters, for instance, or
any other public employment, on Sunday.
Senator Blair.—Is not that equivalent to saying that
if the penalty shall not be enforced aglainst them, there
shall be no law against them ? Because the law with-
out the penalty is simply an opinion ; it is not a law.
Mrs. Batekam.—The law could provide that they
should not open a post-office, for instance, or any place
of business ; and if there was a fine imposed, they would
be compelled to close such places on Sunday. It was,
of course, only thrown out as a suggestion from us that
if it could be done, we should like to have such a pro-
vision in the bill. We are satisfied that people want
the law, and if the law can, in your wisdom, be arranged
with such an exemption, then we wish it ; otherwise we
do not. We are all glad, I think, to have the gentlemen
admit that they do not want such an exemption, for
that releases us from the place where we were.
Senator Blair. — This is not to be a general Sunday
law. These people all live in States, and they can work
at their private occupations just the same under similar
amendments to the State law, if the State saw fit to
make such amendments. Prof. Jones says it did not
work well in Arkansas, and I should think it did not,
from his description. But these are public occupations,
or quasi public occupations, we are dealing with ; that
of interstate commerce, for instance, carried on by
ExEmpTioN FOR THE TEEEiTcHaEs. 150
great corporations which are public in their relation to

the working-men, because they are exercising a great
public function in carrying on transportation which ap-
pertains to everybody all over the country.
This proposed law undertakes to prohibit the nullifi-
cation of all Sunday-rest laws in the States so far as to
provide that interstate commerce shall not be carried
on, in violation of the law, upon the Sabbath. When
you come to the private occupations which are regu-
lated by the States, if they choose to allow the Seventh-
day Baptist people to work on Sunday in those private
occupations, on the farm, in the workshop, in the, fac-
tory, this measure does not interfere with them at all.
Mrs. Bateharn. — I have not the words before me,
but my impression is that there is a clause in the bill
providing. that the jurisdiction of Congress shall be
exercised over the Territories in this matter. There is
something of that kind in the bill, and this proposed ex-
emption was designed to reach those cases, rather than
apply to the general governmental action.
• Senator Blair. — You think the exemption might be
made with reference to the Territories ?
Mrs. Bateham. —Yes ; that was the point we had in
mind in this general action. I have not the words of
the bill before me, but there is something of that kind
in it which we had in mind. I wish to say also that one
of the requests of our National Woman's Christian Union
was that the word promote should be changed to protect,
in the title of the bill, so that it should have no apfear-
ance of what all Americans object to, any union of
church and state. That amendment was proposed and
accepted by the American Sabbath Union, the organized
body which has just been in session in this city.
Senator Blair. — Do you not think that the word pro-
tect implies power to command and compel I An army
protects.
Mrs. Bateham. — All our laws protect us, do they

not ?
Senator Blair.—You would make this a law ?
Mrs. Bateham.—I suggest that the bill be made a
law, and that it be a law which shall protect the civil
Sabbath, not promote religious worship, but protect the
day as a day of rest and religious worship.
Senator Blair. — It seems to me that the word pro-
tect is a stronger and more interfering word than pro-
mote. However, all these suggestions are important
REPLY.
Mr. Yones.—Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Bateham in her

first address this morning, in telling who they are that
are in favor of this Sunday law, said that she believed
"the great majority of the people will approve such a
law." She mentioned as opposed to it only "the daily
newspaper press," "the railroad managers," "steamboat
companies," " saloonists and their backers," "a class of
foreigners who prefer the continental Sunday," and "the
very small sect of Seventh-day Baptists."
Hon. G. P. Lord in his remarks said that "not more
than three million of our population work on Sabbath,
and most of this number are unwilling workers." He
said that " the balance, or more than fifty-seven million
of our population, abstain from toil on the Sabbath."
Taking these statements as the truth, it appears that
the overwhelming majority of the American people are
not only in favor of the Sunday law, but they actually
keep that day as a rest day.
Now, gentlemen, is it not rather singular, and a doc-
trine altogether new in a government of the people, that
the majority need to be protected? From whom are
they to be protected ? — From themselves, most assur-
edly, because by their own representation they are so
vastly in the majority that it would be impossible for
tilt NEW DOCTRINE OF PROTECTION. 161
them to be oppressed by anybody else. But in a gov-

ernment of the people, when the majority are oppress-
ing themselves, how can laws prevent it when the laws
must be made by the majority, that is, by the very ones
who are carrying on the oppression ? If to them my ar-
gument seems unsound, I would cite, entirely for their
benefit, the words of the Supreme Court of Ohio, that
the "protection" guaranteed in our Constitutional pro-
visions " means protection to the minority. The major-
ity can protect itself. Constitutions are enacted for the
purpose of protecting the weak against the strong, the
few against the many."
This is sound sense, as well as sound Constitutional
law. Now, suppose in accordance with this sound Con-
stitutional principle, and under cover of their own state-
ments, we, seventh-day observers, whom they them-
selves designate as being so entirely in the minority as
scarcely to be worthy of recognition, —suppose we
should come to Congress asking for protection (and
as all my argument has shown, if anybody needs
protection in this matter, assuredly it is ourselves), =,
suppose, then, we come to Congress asking for protec-
tion in the same way that they ask for it, — suppose we
should ask Congress to enact a law compelling all peo-
ple to do no work on Saturday, in order to protect us in
our right to keep Saturday ; what would be thought of
that ? what would these people themselves think of it ?
what ought anybody to think of it, but that it was a
piece of unwarranted assumption of authority to force
upon others our ideas of religious observances ? That
is all it would be, and it would be utterly inexcusable.
And I risk nothing in saying that these people them-
selves, as well as everybody.else, would pronounce it
unwarrantable and inexcusable. But if that would be
so in the case of a minority who actually need to be pro-
tected, what, then, ought not to be thought of these peo-
ple who claim to be in the overwhelming majority, in

their mission here, asking Congress to compel every-
body to rest on Sunday for their protection !
Gentlemen, it is not protection, but power, that they
want.
REMARKS BY JOHN B. WOOD.
Mr. Wood. —Mr. Chairman. As a member of the

society of Friends, a Quaker, I should like to say a few
words.
I have a great deal of sympathy with people who talk
about the right of conscience. I do not think the United
States Government has any right over the conscience.
We, as Friends, deny their right over our consciences
while we act in accordance with the revealed will of
God, the Bible.
In looking at this Sunday question, I see nothing in
the Bible—there is no word in it -- in which it is stated
that we shall have to work on the first day of the week.
Therefore, I do not think the Seventh-day Baptists have
any right to object to the proposed legislation. The
only thing they lose is one more day's work out of the
week.
The society of Friends has always denied the right
to fight. The result has been that in the United States
they have never lost a life by that means, not even dur-
ing the last war. The Lord Jesus Christ has always
protected them.
I think that any Saturday Baptist who believes hon-
estly that the Sabbath is Saturday, can depend upon
the Lord's providing for him in five days of the week
just as well as if he worked six, and he will have two
Sundays instead of one, and be that much better off.
TWO suSWAV8 INSTEAD OF ONE. 163
REPLY.
Mr. zones. — In answer to the question raised by

Mr. Wood, that conscientious convictions do not require
us to work on the first day of the week, one of the six
working days, I wish to say, —
First, we deny his right, as well as the right of the
State, to assume the prerogative of deciding for us What
the Bible teaches, or what our conscientious convictions
do, or do not, require.
Secondly, we deny the right of the State to cause us to
'lose the whole, or any part, of a day's work out of every
week. And I turn this point upon him as I turned it
upon the others, Why have we not as much right to ask
for a law compelling them to rest on the day that we
keep, as they have to compel us to rest on the day which
they keep ? " The only thing they would lose is one more
day's work out of the week." Then they could " have two
Sundays instead of one, and be that much better off."
Why is it not as good for them as it is for us ? Or is
this a benefit reserved solely for those who do not keep
Sunday ? How this invades the Constitutional right of
acquiring and possessing property, and does deprive us
of property without due process of law, I have already
discussed.
Thirdly, upon this point I wish to read Judge Cooley's
opinion.
.11/Ir. Wood. —I referred to the Bible.
Mr. zones. — The Bible says, " Six days shalt thou
labor." While I do not insist that this is an absolute
command that we shall actually work the whole six
days, I do insist that it is a God-given permission, and
therefore our God-given right, to work six days of
every week. And we deny forever the right of the
State to forbid us to do that which, to say the very
least, God has given us the express right to do.
1.64 THE NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW.
As this is a matter of legislation and therefore of

law, Judge Cooley's opinion is of weight upon the sub-
ject. He says :—
" The Jew [and the seventh-day Christian as well]
who is forced to respect the first day of the week, when
his conscience requires of him the observance of the
seventh also, may plausibly urge that the law discrim-
inates against his religion, and by forcing him to keep
a second Sabbath in each week, unjustly, though by in-
direction, punishes him for his belief"
I have shown —
Senator Blair. — He says " plausibly." That word
plausibly indicates that there are some counter views
somewhere.
Mr. Jones. — As to the exact sense in which he uses
the word plausibly, of course we cannot tell without
consulting Mr. Cooley himself; but I do not see why
we should put the strongest meaning into the word,
especially as farther on he shows that the arg'iment of
the Seventh-day keeper is unanswerable. I am in-
clined to think that the Judge uses the word there in
the sense of fairly, rightly, or feasibly.
Next he says :—
" The laws which prohibit ordinary employments on
Sunday are to be defended, either on the same grounds
which justify the punishment of profanity, or as estab-
lishing sanitary regulations based upon the demonstra-
tion of experience that one day's rest in seven is need-
ful to recuperate the exhausted energies of body and
mind."
That is one of the pretended grounds of this peti-
tion for this national Sunday law ; but the answer of
the Supreme Court of California to that is this : —
"This argument is founded on the assumption that
mankind are in the habit of working too much, and
thereby entailing evil upon society.; and that, without
THE ANSWER TO UNANSWERABLE ARGUMENTS. 165
compulsion, they will not seek the necessary repose

which their exhausted natures demand. This is to us
a new theory, and is contradicted by the history of the
past and the observations of the present. We have
heard in all ages of declamations and reproaches -
against the vice of indolence ; but we have yet to leatn
that there has ever been any general complaint of an
intemperate, vicious, unhealthy, or morbid industry.
On the contrary, we know that mankind seek cessation
from toil, from the natural influences of self-preserva-
tion, in the same manner and as certainly as they seek
slumber, relief from pain, or food to appease their hun-
ger. . . . If we cannot trust free agents to regulate
their own labor, its times and quantity, it is difficult to
trust them to make their own contracts. If the legisla-
ture could prescribe the days of rest for them, then it
would seem that the same power could prescribe the
hours to work, rest, and eat."—Ex parte Newman, 9
Cal. 509, 518.
And Judge Cooley's answer to it is this : —
" The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have preferred
to defend such legislation on the second ground rather
than the first, but it appears to us that if the benefit of
the individual is alone to be considered, the argument
against the law which he may make who has already
observed the seventh day of the week, is unanswerable."
Senator Blair. — But he also holds that for the gen-
eral, the public good, Sunday laws are Constitutional.
Mr. yones.— Yes ; and to be sustained upon au-
thority. For the next sentence says : —
" But on the other ground, it is clear that these laws
are supportable on authority, notwithstanding the in-
convenience which they occasion to those whose relig-
ious sentiments do not recognize the sacred character
of the first day of the week."
It is something unusual for persons to undertake
to answer an unanswerable argument. But Judge
Cooley employs here the only means by which an un-
answerable argument can ever be answered : and that

is, " on authority." That is the way the papacy has
done it from the days of Pope Zosimus, A. D., 418, who,
when asked for the reasons for certain of his arrogant
'actions, exclaimed : " So it has pleased the Apostolic
See !" That was a sufficient answer to all inquiries,
and even to unanswerable arguments.
England fastened upon the American colonies the
Stamp Act. Our fathers presented unanswerable argu-
ments against it ; but the Stamp ,Act, like Judge Cool-
ey's Constitutional Sunday laws, was suppOrtable " on
authority," and that was enough. England proposed to
enforce it. But our revolutionary fathers refused assent
to any such method of answering unanswerable argu-
ments. So we refuse our assent to Mr. Cooley's an-
swer to that which he himself pronounces an unanswer-
able argument.
Senator Blair. — It does not follow that there is no
unanswerable argument in support of Sunday laws, I
take it.
Mr. Jones. — There is the authority.
Senator Blair.— There is authority for the Sunday
laws. It does not follow because the SUnday laws are
supported by authority that therefore there is no suf-
ficient argument upon which to base them.
Mr. Jones. — What authority is there for Sunday
laws ?
Senator Blair. —That is what you have been dis-
cussing ; but you seem to say that because Sunday
laws are supported "by authority," it is the only argu-
ment in favor of a bad law that there is authority for
it. But there may be good authority for the Sunday
law.
Mr. Jones. —That is what is shown here, that there
is no good authority for it when it unjustly punishes a
man for his belief. There cannot be any good authority
THE AUTHORITY FOR SUNDAY LAWS. 167
for unjustly punishing any man for anything, much less

for unjustly punishing him for his belief.
Senator Blair. — He does not say it is bad.
Mr. zones. — But it is bad. Is there any good
answer to an unanswerable argument ?
Now, I propose to find out what authority there is
for Sunday laws.
I before referred to the decision of the Supreme Court
of Arkansas, and have shown from a statement of the
committee on " law and law reform," of which the
members of the Supreme Court were members, .that
that decision was unconstitutional. I have shown that
the principle upon which their decision rested was that
of the omnipotence of parliament. In this, however,
the State of Arkansas only followed the decisions of
other States. In 1858, the Constitution of California
said, in Section 4: "The free exercise and enjoyment
of religious profession and worship without discrim-
ination or preference shall forever be allowed in this
State." There was a statute passed by the legislature
enforcing the observance of " the Christian Sabbath," on
the first day of the week. A Jew in Sacramento kept
his store open on Sunday ; he was arrested, convicted,
and sent to jail. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus
on the ground of " the illegality of his imprisonment
by reason of the unconstitutionality of the law." The
majority of the court sustained the plea by decisions
separately written, whose soundness, both upon Con-
stitutional principles and upon the abstract principle of
justice itself, can never be successfully controverted.
Mr. Stephen J. Field, now Associate-Justice of the Su-
preme Court of the United States, was then a member
of the California Court. He rendered a dissenting
opinion, taking the same position as the Supreme
Court of Arkansas as to the omnipotence of the leg-
islature, and soberly maintaining that the term " Chris-
tian Sabbath " in the act was not a discrimination or

preference in favor of any religious profession or wor-
ship. He declared that "moralists and statesmen,"
" men of science and distinguished philosophers," have
pronounced the rule of " one day's rest in seven " to
be "founded upon a law of our race." But he omit-
ted to state what scientist or philosopher or moralist
or statesman has ever pronounced upon what law is
founded the rule of two days' rest in seven for the man
who chooses to rest some other day than Sunday !
In his written opinion, Mr. Field said that he had
found that in twenty-five States of the Union, Sunday
laws had been held to be Constitutional. That this
is so there can be no doubt. On this subject, as on
that of blasphemy, which I have already noticed, the
younger States, both in legislation and judicial decis-
ions, have followed the example of the older States ;
these have followed the decisions of the oldest, and the
oldest followed the example and the precedents of the
colonies ; and every one of the colonies had Sunday
laws because every one had an established religion.
These followed the precedents of the English system,
which is wholly a church-and-state system. The church-
and-state system of England severed itself from the
papal rule when Henry VIII. renounced allegiance
to the pope, and put himself at the head of the church
of England in the place of the pope. The British sys-
tem at that time was the papal system ; the papal
system was established by the mutual craft, flattery,
and policy of Constantine and the ambitious bishops of
his time, when the first Sunday law was enacted. This,
in a word, is the genealogy of the Sunday laws of the
United States. They belong with an established relig-
ion, — a union of church and state. And in this coun-
try they have been almost universally sustained, either
upon the British principle of the omnipotence of par-
THE AUTHORITY. FOR SUNDAY LAWS. 169
liament, or upon the church and state principles of

the colonies, of the British government, and of the
papacy.
The law of Pennsylvania, sustained by the decision
referred to by Judge Cooley, was virtually a colonial
law, which was a part of the system in which nobody
who did " not confess and acknowledge one Almighty
God to be the Creator, upholder, and ruler of the
world," could be a citizen.
The Supreme Court of New York sustains Sunday
laws by at once declaring Christianity to be the estab-
lished religion of that State. This is based upon
Chief Justice Kent's decision before referred to, which
cited a law of the colony which declared that " the pro-
fanation of the Lord's day was ' the great scandal of the
Christian faith.'" That decision of Judge Kent's made
Christianity the established religion of the State of New
York, by citing the precedents of the papal institutions
of modern Europe and the pagan nations of antiquity.
This, again, .proves Sunday laws to belong with
established religions, with the union of church and
state, finding their basis in papal and pagan institutions.
In every statute book in America, with scarcely an
exception, Sunday laws are found under the head of
" offenses against religion," or " offenses against God
and religion." This springs naturally from the colonial
legislation, where each colony deemed itself the special
guardian of God and of some particular form of religion.
But according to the word of Christ, the civil power
has nothing to do with either God or religion, nor with
offenses against God or religion. Religion is defined
by Webster as " the recognition of God as an object
of worship, love, and obedience." Another definition,
given by the National Reform Association itself, is
" man's personal relation of faith and obedience to God."
Civil government has nothing to do with a man's per-
sonal relation of faith and obedience to God. If he has

no faith at all, and makes no pretensions to obedience to
God, that is nothing to the civil government, so long as
the man conducts himself civilly. Neither has civil
government anything to do with offenses against God ;
the Lord himself can attend to that. A man is respon-
sible alone to God for the offenses which he commits
against God. Civil government has no business to
establish a religion, and then make offenses against it
criminal ; nor has it any, business to put itself in the
place of God, and presume to declare that an offense
against the governmental idea of God is an offense
against God. How is the civil government to know
whether an act offends God or not? The fact of the
matter is, that just as soon as Sunday laws are inves-
tigated at all in the light of truth, or justice, or law,
it is found that they are inseparable from an estab-
lished religion, — inseparable from a union of church
and state.
This is further shown by a mere glance at the British
system, as set forth by Blackstone in his chapter on
"Offenses against God and religion." There "profana-
tion of the Lord's day" is classed with such things
as "apostasy," "heresy," " reviling the ordinances of
the church," " non-comformity to the worship of the
church," "witchcraft," "conjuration," "enchantment,"
"sorcery," "religious imposture, such as falsely pre-
tending an extraordinary commission from heaven,"
adultery as an ecclesiastical offense cognizable by the
spiritual court, and such confusion of civil and relig-
ious ideas as the punishment of drunkenness as an of-
fense against God and religion. This is the company
with which Sunday laws belong. The penalty for
apostasy was, first, burning to death ; this fell into
disuse after a while, Then the penalty was that "for
THE AUTHORITY FOR SUNDAY LAWS. 171
the first offense the offender should be rendered in-

capable to hold any office or place of trust."
At such legal nonsense as this the United States Con-
stitution struck a death blow in the clause which de-
clares that "no religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office or public trust under this
Government." And by the first amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States, this Government utterly
separated itself from the whole system of offenses against
God and religion so long maintained by the British gov-
ernment, by the colonies, and even yet by many of the
States, and which is characteristic of all church-and-state
governments — governments of established religion —
by declaring that " Congress shall make no law respect-
ing an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." This is sound American principle,
and accords with the word of Jesus Christ. And the
effort ought to be, throughout this whole nation, to lift
the constitutions, the legislation, and the jurisprudence
of the States up to the level of that of the national Con-
stitution. But instead of doing that, and so carrying
this whole nation bodily onward in the march of liberty,
enlightenment, and progress, these people go about to
bring down our national system of Constitution and
laws to the level of that of the States, which is the level
of that of the colonies, which is the level of that of the
British system, which is the level of that of the papacy,
which is the system of paganism under cover of the
Christian name.
Dr. Elliott here to-day cited Edgar, Athelstan, and
Alfred in support of Sunday laws. To be sure ! And
with equal force he can cite these and many others of
the Dark Ages in support of tithes to the clergy, the
supremacy of the monks in civil affairs, the "holy
anointing" of kings by the pope, and for any and every
other thing that belongs with the papal system. He

can carry his Sunday-law precedents farther back than
that : he can go back to the time of Theodosius and Con-
stantine. He can find, and so can you or anybody else,
that as Pontifex Maximus of the old pagan system, Con-
stantine " had the plenary power of appointing holy
days ; " he can find that by virtue of this power, Con-
stantine established the first Sunday-law of all time, in
honor of the "venerable day of the sun," whose special
devotee he was ; and also that, as " bishop of exter-
nals" of the new pagan system, -- the papal, — which of-
fice he assumed by virtue of his political conversion to
the political Christianity of his time, he played into the
hands of the ambitious bishops by giving them in that
Sunday law their coveted " use of the power of the State
for the furtherance of their aims" to compel men to ac-
cept the decrees, and submit to the dictates, of the
church. He, and all others, will find that this is the
literal truth of the origin of Sunday laws.
All this is supported by abundance of testimony of
undoubted authority. So eminent a divine as Dean
Stanley declares plainly that the retention of the old
pagan name of "dies solis," or Sunday, for the weekly
Christian festival, " is owing to the union of pagan and
Christian sentiment with which the first day of the
week was recommended by Constantine to his subjects,
pagan and Christian alike, as the `venerable day of
the sun.' . . . It was his mode of harmonizing the dis-
cordant religions of the empire under one common in-
stitution."
This same mode of harmonizing paganism with
Christianity was further illustrated by his imperial
coins, bearing on one side the name of Christ, and on
the other the figure of the sun god, with the inscrip-
tion, "the unconquerable sun." This confusion of pagan
and Christian ideas and practices is what made the
140 AUTI-IORITV FOR SUNDAY LAWS. 118
papacy, the union of church and state, and the con-

fusion of civil and religious things, from which, with
the exception of the government of the United States,
the nations have not even yet freed themselves. This,
sir, is the authority, and the only authority, for Sunday
laws. Sunday has no basis whatever as a civil institu-
tion ; it never had any. And the only basis it has, or
ever had, as a religious institution is in that confusion
of paganism and Christianity which made the papacy,
with all that it is or ever was.
As authority for Sunday, and as the basis of this leg-
islation, Dr. Johnson here to-day appealed to the fourth
commandment. The " American Sabbath Union," now
in session in this city, and which is working for the
passage of this bill, likewise declares the basis of their
whole movement to be the fourth commandment. It is
proper, therefore, to inquire, What authority is there for
Sunday laws, in the fourth commandment ? As this is
a question of legislation and of law, I shall examine it
from the stand-point of law. Suppose, then, that this
bill has become a law, and the courts in construing it
take judicial cognizance of the fourth commandment as
the basis of the law.
Courts are guided by certain well-established rules
in the construction of laws. According to these rules,
what would be the result of the judicial construction of
such a law upon the basis of the fourth commandment ?
1. " What a court is to do, is to declare the law as
written."
The fourth commandment as written is as follows :—
" Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six
days shalt thou' labor, and do all thy work : but the
seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God : in it
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant,
nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates :
ft4 THE NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW.
for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the
sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day :
wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hal-
lowed it."
That commandment as written says, " The seventh
day is the Sabbath." Consequently, at the very first
step the first day of the week, as declared in the bill,
and as these people demand, would be completely shut
out. But if any should innocently inquire, The seventh
day of what ? the commandnient itself is ready with an
explicit answer. It is the day upon which the Lord
rested from the work of creation. In that work he
employed six days, and the seventh day he rested,
and that alone, as Dr. Johnson .has said, established
the weekly division of time. As those seven days
formed the first week of time, the seventh of those
seven was the seventh day of the week, and that is the
seventh day fixed in the commandment. This is con-
firmed by the Scriptures throughout. ' The New Tes-
tament itself declares that the Sabbath is past before
the first day of the week comes. Mark 16 : 1, 2, says : —
" And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magda-
lene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had
brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint
him. And very early in the morning, the first day of
the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of
the sun."
Those people mentioned in this Scripture came to
the sepulcher very early.in the morning of the first day
of the week ; yet the Sabbath was past. This national
Sunday-bill which is here under discussion proposes to.
secure the religious observance of the Sabbath on the
first day of the week. But such a thing can never be
done, because according to the scripture, the Sabbath
is past before the first day of the week comes. It mat-
ters not how early persons may come to the first day
of the week and its observance, they will be too late
NO AUTHORITY FOR SUNDAY LAWS. 175
to find the Sabbath in it ; because by the word of the

Lord it is past before the first day of the week comes.
This is made yet more positive, if need be, by the
record in Luke .23 : 56 and 24 :1, which says : —
" And they returned, and prepared spices and oint-
ments ; and rested the Sabbath day according to the
commandment. Now upon the first day of the week,
very early in the morning, they came unto the sepul-
cher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and
certain others with them."
Here it is declared that certain people rested the
Sabbath day according to the commandment, and then
on the first day of the week did what they would not
do on the Sabbath day. This proves conclusively that
the Sabbath day according to the commandment which
these men cite, and which it is supposed that the courts
will have to interpret when this becomes a law,— this
proves that that Sabbath day is the day before the first
day of the week, and therefore plainly demonstrates
that the seventh day named in the commandment is
nothing else than the seventh day of the week. There-
fore, if courts, in the interpretation of this command-
ment as the basis of a Sunday law, declare the law as
written and as defined by the plain word of the Lord,
they will have to declare that the seventh day of the
week, and not the first day, is the Sabbath.
2. In the case of all law, it is the intent of the law-
giver that is to be enforced."
What, then, was the intent of the Lawgiver when
the fourth commandment was given ? Did the Law-
giver declare or show in any way his intention ?— He
did. When the Lord gave that law at Sinai he did not
leave it to the people to interpret it to suit themselves,
nor to interpret it at all. By three special acts every
week, kept up continuously for nearly forty years, he
showed his intent in the law. The people were fed by
manna in their forty years' wanderings. But on the
seventh day of the week no manna ever fell. On the

sixth day of the week there was a double portion, and
that which was gathered on that day would keep over
the seventh, which it could not be made to do at any
other period, or over any other day iri the week.
By this means the Lawgiver signified his intent upon
the subject of observing the day mentioned in that law ;
and keeping it up continuously for so long a time made
it utterly impossible that his intent should be mistaken.
Therefore, if the courts of the United States shall
ever take judicial cognizance of the fourth command-
ment, which is held forth by these people as the basis
and the authority for their movement, according to
this rule, the seventh day of the week, and not the first
day, will have to be declared the Sabbath.
3. " When words are plain in a written law, there is
an end to all construction.: they must be followed."
Are the words of the fourth commandment plain
words ?— They are. There is not an obscure nor an
ambiguous word in the commandment.
Then, according to this rule, if ever that question
becomes one of judicial cognizance in the courts of the
United States, the seventh day of the week, and not the
first day, will have to be declared to be the Sabbath.
That is all that the courts can declare.
Therefore, the conclusion of the whole matter thus
far is that if our courts are to remain courts of law and
are to be guided by the established rules for the con-
struction of law, they never can uphold any law for the
enforcement of the Sabbath or the Lord's day on the first
day of the week.
Just here, however, another element comes into court,
and that is the theological. The theologians step in
right here and declare that the intention of the fourth
commandment has been changed, and that now, instead
of that commandment's requiring the observance of the
seventh day in remembrance of creation, it requires the

observance of the first day of the week in remembrance
of the resurrection of Christ. To reach this point they
first declare that the phrase " the seventh day" in the
commandment is indefinite ; that it does not enjoin the
observance of any particular day, but only of one day
in seven. But such a construction is not only clearly
in violation of established rules for the construction of
law, but it involves an assumption of power on their
part that can never be allowed. Admitting for argu-
ment's sake that that phrase in the commandment is in-
definite, it must be admitted that the Lord, when he
wrote it, intentionally made it indefinite, because the
Scripture says that when he had spoken these words,
he added no more ; he had nothing more to say on the
subject. What he said then was final. If, then, that
statement be indefinite, he intended it so, and no other
than the Lord ever can, or ever has the right to, make
it definite. But the theologians, just as soon as they
make it indefinite to escape the obligation which it en-
joins to observe the seventh day, then make it definite
in order to sustain the supposed obligation to keep the
first day of the week. Consequently, when they make
it definite after having declared that the Lord made it
indefinite, they assume the power and the prerogative
to do what the Lord intentionally declined to do ; and
in that they put themselves above God.
So much for their theological assumptions. Such a
course is not only theologically an assumption of al-
mighty power, but on the basis of law it is a violation
of the rule which declares that —
4. "No forced or unnatural construction is to be put
upon the language of a statute."
To make the phrage " the seventh day" in that corn-
mandmeht indefinite, and mean any one day in seven
and not any seventh day in particular, is nothing else
12
than to put a forced and unnatural construction upon

the language, not only of the commandment itself
throughout, but on all the language of the Scriptures
upon the subject of the commandment.
Further, to make that commandment support the
observance of the first day of the week in commemo-
ration of the resurrection, is not only to put a forced
and most unnatural construction upon it, but is a direct
violation of that other rule of law which declares that —
5. " A constitution [or statute] is not to be made to
mean one thing at one time and another at some sub-
sequent time when the circumstances may have so
changed as perhaps to make a different rule in the
case seem desirable. . . . The meaning of the constitu-
tion [or statute] is fixed when it is adopted, and it is
not different at any subsequent time when a court has
occasion to pass upon it."
As I have clearly proved, the meaning of the fourth
commandment when it was given was that the seventh
day of the week should be observed, and for the reason
that God rested that day from the work of creation, and
blessed the day and hallowed it. That Sabbath day for •
that reason was established before man had sinned, and
before there was any need of the resurrection of Christ.
If man had never sinned, the day would have been ob-
served, for the reason given, in commemoration of the
rest of the Creator from his work of creation. That
being the meaning of the commandment when the
commandment was given, that must be the meaning of
the commandment so long as the commandment re-
mains. And according to this rule it can never be
made to mean anything else ; although to the theolo-
gians who wish .to have it so, the circumstances con-
cerning the resurrection may seem to make it desirable.
Here the question very pertinently arises, Shall the
Congress and the courts of the United States adopt the
wishes of the theologians, and, in violation, of the rules
of law, undertake to make the statute of God mean that

which it was never intended to mean ? In contempla-
tion of this demand which is now made by the theolo-
gians, the words of Judge Cooley — " Constitutional
Limitations," p. G7 — are worthy of consideration by
Congress, as well as by the judges of the United States •
courts. He says : — --
" A court or legislature which should allow a change
of public sentiment to influence it in giving to a written
constitution a construction not warranted by the inten-
tion of its founders, would be justly chargeable with
reckless disregard of official oath and public duty."
The theologians have given to the fourth command-
ment a construction which is not in any sense warranted
by the intention of the Author of the commandment.
They come to the national legislature, and ask it to
allow itself to be influenced by these theological senti-
ments in giving to that written constitution of the gov-
ernment of God, a construction which is not warranted
by the intention of the Founder of that constitution.
As Judge Cooley says, such a thing done to a human
constitution, an earthly statute, would be reckless dis-
regard of official oath and public duty. But if this is
true in the case of things wholly human and earthly,
what should be thought of such an action with reference
to the divine constitution, and heavenly raw ?
Will the national legislature allow this theolog-
ical sentiment to influence it to commit an act with
reference to the constitution and laws of the living
God, which, if committed with reference to the laws of
men, would be reckless disregard of official oath and
public duty ? Not only do I ask, Is the national legis-
lature ready to do this ? but is it ready also by doing it
to force the United States courts into the sanctioning
of it in direct violation of the plainest principles of
every rule for the construction of law ? Is the national
legislature ready to take the step which would turn all
our courts of law into courts of theology ? For' such

would be the only effect of the enactment of such a law
as is here demanded by the theologians ; because when
the law comes to be interpreted by the courts upon the
basis upon which the law is enacted, the first day of the
week as the Sabbath can never be sustained by rules of
law or by the principles of interpretation established in
law. The only way it can ever be sustained is by
principles established by the theologians and by theo-
logical distinctions, in total disregard of the rules of
law ; and the effect of it can be nothing else than to
turn our courts of law into courts of theology.
More than this, the Scriptures plainly and logically
show the seventh day to be the Lord's day. The
actual expression, "the Lord's day," is used but once in
the Bible, and that in Rev. 1 : 10, saying, " I was
in the Spirit on the Lord's day." But that text does
not say what day of the week the Lord's day is.
Other texts in the Bible, however, speak on the subject
in such a way as logically to show what day is meant
by the expression, " the Lord's day." The Lord him-
self said, " The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath."
Mark 2 : 28.
The Lord also said, " The seventh day is the Sab-
bath." Here are two plain Scripture statements which
may form the premises of a syllogism ; thus : —
Major : The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.
Minor : The seventh day is the Sabbath.
The only conclusion that can ever be drawn from
these premises is, —
Therefore, the Son of man is Lord of the seventh
day.
That conclusion is just as sound as these two state-
ments of Scripture are, and the two statements of
Scripture are as plain and positive on that subject as
any two statcriwnts ever can be made. Forming an-
Isto AUTHORITY 'OR StigbAY LAWS. 181
other syllogism, of which the above conclusion shall be

the minor, we have this :—
Major : Whatever day it is of which the Son of man
is Lord, is the Lord's day.
Minor : The Son of man is Lord of the seventh day.
Therefore, the Lord's day is the seventh day.
This logic is unquestionable ; this conclusion is just
as true as the Scripture itself. Therefore, as surely as
courts undertake the interpretation of any statute en-
forcing the observance of the Lord's day, and enter
upon an inquiry as to what day is the Lord's day, they
will, if logical, be brought face to face with the fact as
demonstrated by the word of the Lord himself, that the
seventh day, and not the first day, is the Lord's day.
But it will probably be said that the courts are not
to enter upon the interpretation of Scripture ; they are
to interpret the law as it has been enacted, and as it is
written ; and the law as enacted says that the first
day of the week is the Lord's day, and that is as
far as the courts can go. Suppose that be granted.
Then that puts the United States Government into the
place where it establishes an institution as the Lord's
and enforces its observance, which not only the Lord
has not established, but which is directly contrary to
the plain word of the Lord upon the subject of this in-
stitution and its observance.
One or the other of these alternatives therefore the
United States Government will be forced to adopt as
surely as this bill or any one like it shall ever become a
law. The Government will either have to become the
authoritative interpreter of Scripture for all the citizens
of the Government, or else it will have to put itself in
the place of God, and authoritatively declare that ob-
servances established by the State and which it calls
the Lord's are the Lord's indeed, although the word
of the Lord declares the contrary. Is the United
States Government ready to take either of these posi,-

tions ? Is the Congress of the United States ready to
force the Government of the United States to the al-
ternative of taking one or the other of these positions ?
The taking of either of these positions by the Gov-
ernment would be nothing else than for this enlight-
ened nation, in this period of the nineteenth century, to
assume the place, the power, and the prerogatives of
the governments of the Middle Ages in enforcing the
dogmas and the definitions of the theologians, and ex-
ecuting the arbitrary and despotic will of the church,
Thus, from whatever point this subject of Sunday
laws may be viewed, it plainly appears that aside from
the papacy there is no authority whatever for Sunday
laws, nor even for Sunday keeping ; and that the only
effect that a national Sunday law can ever have, will
be only evil, and that continually. Let Congress now
and forever decidedly and utterly refuse to have any-
thing to do with it in any way whatever ; and let all
the people, instead of sanctioning a movement to bring
the national legislation down to the degraded level of
the States on this subject, put forth every effort to
bring the legislation of the States up to that place
where it shall be limited as the power of Congress is
limited by the declaration of the national Constitution,
that it " shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Now, in the name of law, Constitutional and stat-
utory, moral and civil ; in the name of enlightenment
and progress ; in the name of reason and the revelation
of Jesus Christ, I seriously ask, Why should the people
of such a nation as this, living under such a constitution
as is our national Constitution, be asked to return to
the papal system in the Dark Ages, which was only the
inevitable outcome of the wicked scheme that was con-
ceived in sin, — "the man of sin," —and brought forth
NO AUTHORITY FOR SUNDAY LAWS. I S3
in iniquity, — " the mystery of iniquity," — in the days

of Constantine ? Why should such a people as this,
dwelling under the best Constitution and the most
enlightened influences of all ages, be asked to return
to the wicked system that characterized the Middle
Ages ?
No, sir ; the noble men who pledged their lives, their
fortunes, and their sacred honor, when they established
our Constitution, separated, as they supposed forever,
this nation from all the wicked influences of the church-
and-state systems of the colonies, of England, and of
all other nations of all times. And under this Consti-
tution, in true liberty, civil and religious, in genuine en-
lightenment and progress, this nation has deservedly
stood as the beacon light of the world for a hundred
years. Let this splendid nation ever still look forward
and not backward ; let it still hold its honored place be-
fore all the nations ; and God forbid that by any such
effort as is now being made in behalf of this Sunday
law, this glorious nation should be brought down from
her high place, and made to follow in the papal train.
Gentlemen, no further argument is needed to show
that the Sunday laws of all the States, and the princi-
ples of the decisions of the Supreme Courts which
sustain them, are wholly wrong, springing from the
papal principle of church and state, and supported by
the equally un-American principle of the omnipotence
of the legislative power. They are totally subversive of
American principles. Yet Sunday laws have never
been, and can never be, sustained on any other princi-
ple. And this is only to say that which is the sum of
all this discussion : There is no foundation in justice,
in right, or even in expediency, for any Sunday laws, or
Lord's-day laws, or Sabbath laws, UNDER ANY
GOVERNMENT ON THIS EARTH.
APPENDIX A.
THE American Sabbath Union in its "Monthly
Documents," has tried to make it appear that, in my
argument before the Senate Committee, I admitted the
right of the Government to make Sunday laws for the
public good. The effort was not only made by the
Association in its own documents, but the document
and statements were reprinted in Our Day. To coun-
teract the influence of this effort, as well as to make
the point yet clearer, if possible, and expose another
method which the Sunday-law workers employ to
secure support for their movement, I insert the follow-
ing—
OPEN LETTER
To the Rev. y. H. Knowles, Secretary of the American
Sabbath Union.
DEAR SIR : In the monthly documents of the Amer-
ican Sunday Association, edited by yourself, you have
chosen to charge me with insincerity ; and you have
also done your best to make it appear that I " admit all
that the friends of the Sunday-rest law generally claim—
the right of the Government to make Sunday laws for
the public good."
You have garbled extracts from the report of my
speech before the Senate Committee on the Sunday
law, and then have italicized certain words and sen-
tences in one passage to try to make it appear that I
admit the right of the Government to make Sunday
laws for the public good.
You have quoted from my speech the following
words in the following way : —
[184]
idi,t.tbik A.
Whenever any civil government 'attempts to en-

force anything in regard to any one of the first four
commandments, it invades the prerogative of God, and
is to be disobeyed (I do not say resisted, but diso-
beyed). . . . The State, in its legislation, can never
legislate properly in regard to any man's religious faith,
or in relation to anything in the first four command-
ments of the decalogue ; but if in the exercise of his
religious convictions under the first four commandments
lie invades the rights of his neighbor, then the civil
government says that is unlawful. Why? Because it
is irreligious or because it is immoral? — Not at all;
but because. it is uncivil, and for that reason only.
[Italics ours. —ED.]"
It is in the italicizing of these words that your effort
is made to make me admit what I continually and
Consistently denied before the committee, and do deny
everywhere else. You have inserted in the above quo-
tation.three periods, indicating that a portion has been
left out ; ,and you know full well, sir, that in the portion
which is there left out, is the following : —
" Senator Blair.---` You oppose all the Sunday laws
of the country, then ?'
"Mr. yones.—` Yes, sir.'
" Senator Blair.—' You are against all Sunday laws ?'
"Mr. yones.---` Yes, sir ; we are against every Sun-
day law that was ever made in this world, from the first
enacted by Constantine to this one now proposed.'
" Senator Blair.—` State and national alike ?'
" Mr. yones. — State and national, sir.'"
Not only were these words there, but in that portion
which you have printed following the' italicized words,
you yourself have printed my plain denial of the right
of any nine hundred and ninety-nine people out of a
thousand to compel the thousandth man to rest on the
day on which the majority_rest, in the following form : —
" Senator Blair. — ` the majority has a right to rule
in what pertains to the regulation of society ; and if
186 'THg NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW.
Cmsar regulates society, then the majority has a right

in this country to say what shall be rendered to Csar.'
"Mr. yones.—` If nine hundred and ninety-nine peo-
ple out of every thousand in the United States kept
the seventh day, that is, Saturday, and I deemed it my
choice and right to keep Sunday, I would insist on it,
and they would have no right to compel me to rest on
Saturday.'
" Senator Blair. —' In other words, you take the
ground that for the good, of society, irrespective of
the religious aspect of the question, society may not re-
quire abstinence from labor on the Sabbath, if it dis-
turbs others ?'
"Mr. yones.—`No, sir.'
" Senator Blair. — `You are logical all the way
through that there shall be no Sabbath."
That last expression of mine, saying " No, sir," is in
accord, and was intended when spoken to be in accord,
with Senator Blair's inquiring statement whether so-
ciety may not require abstinence from labor on the Sab-
bath. My answer there means, and when it was spoken
it was intended to mean, that society may not do so.
As to its disturbing others, I had just before proved
that the common occupations of men who choose to
work on Sunday or any other day do not disturb and
cannot disturb the rest of the majority who choose to
rest that day.
Again : A little farther along you print another pas-
sage in which are the following words :—
" Senator Blair. —` You would abolish any Sabbath
in human practice which shall be in the form of law,
unless the individual here and there sees fit to ob-
serve it ?'
"Mr. Yones.—' Certainly ; that is a matter between
man and his God.' "
Now, I should like for you in a monthly document, or
by some other means, to show how by any fair means,
or by any sincere purpose, you can, even by the use of
APPENDIX 18/
italics, make me in that speech adrnit the right of the

Government to make Sunday laws for the public good.
You know, sir, that in that speech I distinctly stated
that any human laws for the enforcement of the Sab-
bath, instead of being "for the good of society, are for
the ruin of society."
a Aga i n : You know, for you printed it in one of your
documents, that Senator Blair said to me : " You are
logical all the way through that there shall be no Sab-
bath." You know that in another place he said again
to me : "You are entirely ' logical, because you say
there should be no Sunday legislation by State or na-
tion either."
Now, sir, I repeat, you have charged me with insin-
cerity. Any one making such a charge as that ought
to be sincere. Will you, therefore, explain upon what
principle it is that you claim to be sincere in this thing,
when in the face of these positive and explicit statements
to the contrary and Senator Blair's confirmation of them
to that effect, you can deliberately attempt to force
into my words a meaning that was never there, that
was never intended to be there, and that never can by
any honest means be put there ?
More than this : It can hardly be thought . that
Senator Blair will very highly appreciate the compli-
ment that you have paid to his logical discernment,
when in the face of his repeated statement that I was
logical all the way through, you force into my words a
meaning that could have no other effect than to make
me illogical all the way through.
I have no objection to your printing my words as
they were spoken ; but I do object to your forcing into
them 'a meaning directly contrary to that which the
words themselves convey, and which they were in-
tended to convey ; and I further object to your so
garbling my statements as to make it possible for you
188 tHE NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW.
to force into them a meaning that they never can hon-

estly be made to bear.
In that speech also I said that if an idol-worshiper
in this country should attempt to offer a human sacri-
fice, the Government should protect the life of its sub-
ject from the exercise of that man's religion ; that he
has the right to worship any idol that he chooses, gut
that he has not the right to commit murder in the
worship of his idol, and the State forbids the murder
without any reference at all to the question as to
whether that man is religious or whether he worships
or not, with no reference to the commandment which
forbids idol-worship, and with no thought whatever of
forbidding his idolatry. I stated also that if anybody
claiming apostolic example should practice community
of property, and in carrying out that practice should
take your property or mine without our consent, the
State would forbid the theft without any reference
at all to the man's religious opinions, and with no
thought of forbidding the practice of community of
property. You know that it was with direct reference
to these words that I used the words which you have
italicized. I there distinctly denied that the State can
ever of right legislate in relation to anything in the
first four commandments of the decalogue. But, if any
man in the exercise of his rights under the first four
commandments, and in this case under the fourth com-
mandment, should invade the right of his neighbor,
as I have expressed it, by endangering his life, his lib-
erty, or his property, or attack his character, or invade
his rights in any way, the government has the right to
prohibit it, because of the incivility ; but with never
any question as to whether the man is religious or irre-
ligious, and with never a purpose or a thought of for-
bidding the free exercise of any man's right to work on
any day or all days, as he chooses.
APPENDIX A. 189
This is precisely what every State in this Union

already does by statutes which punish disturbances of
religious worship or religious meetings, or peaceable
assemblies of any sort. But there is a vast difference
between such statutes as these and the ones which you
desire shall be enacted. These are strictly civil stat-
utes, prohibiting incivility, and are far from anything
like the enforcement of religious observances. The
Sunday-law workers complain of the disturbance of
their, worship on Sunday. If they are sincere in this,
why do n't they enforce the laws already on the statute
books prohibiting disturbance of worship ? California,
for instance, prohibits disturbance of worship, under
penalty of five hundred dollars' fine and six months in
jail. But instead of having such legitimate laws en-
forced, you propose to prohibit the disturbance of your
worship on Sunday by compelling everybody to keep
Sunday. Upon this same principle you would have the
State forbid the offering of human sacrifices by an idol-
worshiper, by compelling him to keep the second com-
mandment. In short, the principle is that you would
have the State prohibit incivility by compelling every-
body to be religious. And you are so enraptured with
this distorted view, that you have chosen in your sin-
cerity and by italics to force me to sanction the wicked
principle. But it will not work. I say always, If your
worship is disturbed on Sunday or at any other time,
let the State punish the person or persons who create
the disturbance. Let the State punish them by such
strictly legitimate statutes as the States already have
on this subject. But let the State never attempt to
prohibit disturbance of worship by trying to compel
men to worship, nor attempt to prohibit incivility by
enforcing religious observances. This is just what I
had in view, and is precisely what I meant, in the
words which you have italicized.
All this is further shown in the argument which I

made, in that, immediately following the words which
you have italicized, I proved that Sunday work does
not disturb the rest or the worship of those who keep
Sunday. And the conclusion of that is, therefore, that
there is no basis for Sunday laws on that ground. This
I prove by the fact that the people who make this the
ground of their demand for Sunday laws, do not recog-
nize for an instant that work on Saturday disturbs the
rest or the worship of the people who keep Saturday.
I there showed that if your work on Saturday does not
disturb my rest or my worship, my work on Sunday
cannot disturb your. rest or your worship. I made this
argument not only on this principle, but from actual ex-
perience. I know, from an experience of fifteen years,
that other people's work on Saturday does not disturb
either my rest or my worship on that day. There are
Seventh-day Adventists in every State and Territory of
this nation, in Canada, nearly every country of Europe,
the Sandwich Islands, Australia, South America, China,
South Africa, and other places. They all rest every Sat-
urday ; they all keep it as the Sabbath unto the Lord.
But no person has ever yet heard of a Seventh-day Ad-
ventist who ever complained that his rest on the Sabbath
was disturbed by other men's work. Not only is this so,
but the Seventh-day Adventists have organized churches
in the great majority of the States and Territories of this
Union. These churches are found in country places, in
villages, in towns, and in cities. They meet for wor-
ship every Saturday ; and although, as everybody
knows, Saturday is the busiest day of the week, in the
midst of such busy cities'as Chicago, Denver, San Fran-
cisco, Minneapolis, and Kansas City, these churches of
Seventh-day Adventists assemble regularly for worship ;
and no person has ever yet heard of any Seventh-day
Adventists' making a complaint that their worship was
APPENDIX A. 191
disturbed by the work, the business, or the traffic that

is carried on by other people on that day. The fact is,
our worship is not disturbed by these things.
Now, sir, if all the labor, the business, and the traffic
that is done on Saturday, the day which is acknowl-
edged by all to be the busiest day of the week, — if all
this, in such cities as I have named, does not disturb
our rest or our worship, will you please explain how it
is that your rest and your worship are disturbed on
Sunday, when there is not one one-thousandth part as
much labor, or business, or traffic done on that day as
is done on Saturday ?
This, dear sir, is only an additional argument, but
one which rests on the living' experience of thousands
of people every seventh day, conclusively showing that
your whole theory and claim for Sunday laws break
down utterly at every point. ALONZO T. JONES.
APPENDIX B.
THE following letter from Cardinal Gibbons to Mr.

D. E. Lindsey, of Baltimore, shows from the Cardinal
himself, that the counting of all the Roman Catholics
of the country in favor of the Sunday law on the Car-
dinal's indorsement, as Dr. Crafts and the Woman's
Christian Temperance Union have done, was wholly
unwarranted. This is exactly as I argued before the
Senate Committee, and as we have argued everywhere
else. We have never blamed Cardinal Gibbons for
that which Dr. Crafts and the Woman's Christian Tem-
perance Union put upon him.
" CARDINAL'S RESIDENCE,
408 NORTH CHARLES ST., Baltimore, Md.,
Feb. 27, 1889.
" MY DEAR SIR : In reply to your favor dated Feb.
25, 1889, duly received, His Eminence Cardinal Gib-
bons desires me to write to you, that whatsoever coun-
tenance His Eminence has given to the 'Sunday law'
referred to in your favor, as he had not the authority,
so he had not the intention, of binding the archbishops,
the bishops, or the Catholic laity of the United States.
His Eminence bids me say to you that he was moved
to write a letter favoring the passage of the bill, mainly
from a consideration of the rest and recreation which
would result to our poor overworked fellow-citizens,
and of the facility which it would then afford them of
observing the Sunday in a religious and decorous way.
"It is incorrect to assume that His Eminence, in the
alleged words of Senator Blair set forth in your favor,
' signed the bill, thus pledging seven million two hun-
dred thousand Catholics as indorsing the bill.'
" I have the honor to remain, with much respect,
yours faithfully, J. P. DONAHUE,
" Chancellor.
" To D. E. Lindsey, Esq., 708 Rayner Avenue, Bala-
more , Aid."
19z

02 A.T. Jones - The National Sunday Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 A.T. Jones - The National Sunday Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE

NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW,

United States Senate Committee on Education and Labor;

WASHINGTON, D. C., DEC. 13, 088.

THIS pamphlet is a report of an argument made upon the

Sunday, by Act of Congress. They sent to Congress, " peti-

And in advocating it he regretted that he was not "the most

Senator Peffer said flatly :—

"To-day we are engaged in a theological discussion concern-

ARGUMENT OF ALONZO T. JONES BEFORE THE SENATE

Senator Blair. — There are gentlemen present who

Norway and one in Melbourne, Australia. Our mis-

Senator Blair. — You have a full hour, Professor.

principles upon which we stand ; second, the historical

us to establish the Sabbath for the good of society ?

CIVIL GOVERNMENT A SOCIAL COMPACT. 13

Senator Blair. — That is not conceded. When was

Lord King James, by the grace of God, of Great

And, •sir, the first Constitution of your own State —

" I. All men are born equally free and independent ;

rights of conscience,—these are the principles asserted

tribute to whom tribute is due ; custom to whom cus-

Our duties under civil government pertain solely to

enjoined in any one of the first four of the ten com-

upon the subject of tribute, whether it was lawful to

ment, it is to be rendered only to God ; because we are

laws in the world. There never was a Sunday law that

for governmental authority, and out of respect for God,

but it is essentially uncivil ; and because it is uncivil,

his fellow-man. The civil law protects man's life from

are keeping that day, recognizing it as the Sabbath.

Saturday out of respect to their rights. Would you

Mr. yones.—Y es, sir. But not because blasphemy

any god whatever ; at least in no such God as we do.

Mr. zones. — Idolatry (and covetousness is idol-

jury of twelve men said that one had committed the

without allowing itself ever to become a partisan in re-

But if blasphemy be a proper subject of legislation

To make this clearer, I quote a passage from the

" Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Con-

of the gospel of Christ. It only forbade an open, pub-

the pagan governments of antiquity, and the papal in-

religious bigots who profess the popular religion, an op-

laws of every State in this country, so that the whole

The Christians did have a particular God of their own,

that civil government has a right to legislate in religious

Our national Constitution embodies the very prin-

" In the earliest States known to history, govern-

opposition to Sunday laws, or any other form of relig-

working in behalf of this bill, only yesterday Dr. Crafts

ing a religious institution, any legislation by Congress

be festooned with the names of six millions of petition-

and forty thousand out of two hundred and forty, it was

Senator Blair. — Right there I find fault with your

other day, why is it that there is so much more violence

on Sunday as they do on other days of the week, than

cure the evils of all this enforced idleness by more

proceeding on the part of those who are calling- for this

" In this way, men being constrained to mask their

tials to promote holiness ; and as has been already dem-

government ? I quote from the monthly reading of the

Senator Palmer.— Do you suppose they intended

is yet to come, and it may be they are looking to the

would loyally render allegiance to the king of Baby-